Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:41:23 10/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2000 at 05:53:47, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On October 15, 2000 at 23:25:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>That remains to be seen. I have watched my share of games where you were >>reporting +3, then 2, then suddenly +.5 and so forth. I Wasn't being >>negative about your program. I was being negative about this so-called >>"paradigm shift" that Thorsten likes to mention. Such a shift is _not_ >>hard to do. CSTal did it. But then making it _work_ is something else. > >It works Bob. the main problem with CSTal (that CSTal was not that strong) >wasn`t that Chris was a lousy programmer. He knew about chess and imlemented new >ideas, he was also risky enough to do such a weird program, BUT his programming >abilities were limited. >CSTal works. it would kill its enemies like hell when it would make more >NPS and when the bugs would be out of the program. But the idea works. >Its not important that the score changes. the score MUST change. its only >important to win. cstal was not always able to win, but not because it played >weak, it lost because it was outsearched. >Gambit-Tiger is a program you cannot OUTSEARCH that easy. And it makes 8 x more >NPS. > >The paradigm is shiftet Bob, in a few years ALL chess programs will have to >play like gambit-tiger and cstal. if they don´t do, they can never catch >gambit-tiger. > >Its over IMO. the days of accurate computerchess have are over because they >don´t get the most points anymore. you get more points playing >unsound moves. chris was right. Kust my opinion. Nothing personal Bob. >why not a paradigm change ? a new century has just began a few months before. >why not change old ideas ? when it works. > >>If you do so, fine. But I have seen my share of evidence that says +3.0 >>scores when material is _even_ is _dangerous_. +1? Maybe. Even +2. But >>to give up a piece for an attack that might well fall flat is nice for wild >>chess, but I don't believe it will work for _consistent_ chess. > >how can gambit-tiger win dutch-championship and wipe out shredder4 with 11.5-2.5 >(only 1 loss !! rest wins and 3 draws) when it WILL NOT WORK FOR CONSISTENT >CHESS ???? can you beat a world-computer-chess-champion (paderborn) 11.5-2.5 >by playing Inaccurate ?? you can ! >therefore i do say: the paradigm has shifted. chris w.´s crazy ideas >have been proved right. > >what a surprise, isn´t it :-)) > >>Feel free to prove me wrong of course. I have been pretty speculative in my >>own way, contrary to what Thorsten might think. > > > >>>If it's not hard to "tune" your program to play moves like 43.Rc6 in >>>Nimzo8-Gambit, then why don't you do it right now? >>> >>>Do it, Bob. Do it right now. And let your overtuned version meet Gambit Tiger. >>> >> >> >>Why would I want to do this? Just because you say so? I don't like that >>type of chess from a machine. Because I _know_ that they don't "understand". >>And relying on 'I hope" is dangerous. Perhaps your search is good enough to >>weed out some of the failures, I don't know. But it isn't weeding out anywhere >>near all of this stuff. > >no. relying on I HOPE is pretty normal. your relying on EXACT is the exception. >you lived 40 years in the paradigm of EXACT computer-chess, like newton lived >in his flat-2-dimensional world of forces. Then came einstein and >showed that the forces are just part of the space not beeing flat. >Believing is what makes a human. Hoping. and you cannot measure hope or >believing. how do you want to measure Rc6 ? >is it working ? is it not working ? is it correct or incorrect ? > >you let your program NOT play those unsound moves, therefore they cannot >defend against christophes gambit-tiger, because they cannot SEEEEEEE the things >come. >And if they eat anything he gives, they are only PASSIVE followers. they have to >do what gambit-tiger gives them. if he sacs, they have to eat. they lost >completely the control about the game. > >Or what do you want to do with moves like Rc6 ? >You cannot defend against those moves. not with a hyatt-paradigm- >program. > >You would need what you don´t have. > >>If you can beat my ears off, so be it. But don't be surprised when some start >>taking advantage of such 'speculation'. It isn't difficult... CSTal was >>sort of scarey at first. Then it because sort of boring... > >?!? depends. i don´t find it boring. and i don´t find gambit-tiger boring. > >>>> I will be more >>>>impressed when I see lots of such moves where _most_ are right... >>> >>> >>> >>>I will be impressed when I see Crafty playing just ONE move of thing kind. >>> >>> >> >>I will be more impressed by other things. IE I have seen GM's have it >>easier with gambit tiger than with regular tiger. > >of course !! because GM´s have THIS kind of knowledge much better in their >brains. >GM´s and any human see that Rc6 is the right move to play. >without thinking they play moves like Rc6. Only weak players play without thinking. GM's do not play without thinking. It is not clear that humans see that Rc6 is the right move to play. christophe said that he is not sure if Rc6 is the right move to play and it is possible that in the future a better program is going to see that it is wrong but he does not care about the question if it is the right move to play but only about the question if his program wins. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.