Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 16:54:31 11/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2000 at 11:31:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>That is just a buzz-word... >>aha. and how do YOU know ? without knowing the program ? >Perhaps because I _listen_ to the author of that program when he explains >what he did? Vs trying to dream of what I _hope_ he might have done? i am "listen" to him too since paris. it seems we have different kind of ears. >>without seeing its evaluation live in many many games ? >I _have_ seen the evaluation live in "many games". Some of the beta testers >have asked to see my kibitzes (scores, etc.) and they do the same. That is >how I first noticed that its eval was often 2-3 pawns higher than mine with >absolutely no justification, based on the board position. It because pretty >obvious that it has lots of big scores for its own pieces, but it doesn't pay >any attention at all to what kind of defensive resources are availab.e >Not _every_ open file around the king is fatal. Particularly if your opponent >gets two rooks doubled on that file himself. so why do you think is the program that strong in the moment ? because ">Not _every_ open file around the king is fatal." or because "its eval was often 2-3 pawns higher than mine". If YOUR evaluation was more accurate, you should win the game, or ?! >You are simply wrong. _every_ program anyone tried found the right move. but the score... was wrong. >But >that isn't good enough for you. right. >You have some exaggerated idea about what the >_score_ for that move should be. how much is it worth ?! one bean ? 2 beans ? shall we count them ? who knows ?! > I can adjust crafty's king safety quite >easily to make the score for Rhg1 -5, 0, or +5. yes - i can do the same with CSTal. we made a slider for tuning the values. i can make you a style for any position. any opponent. but is that chess ?! > Yet it plays that move >_every_ time. The number assigned to the score is not nearly so important as >the move that is chosen. the number is not important ? its not important how to evaluate a move in the tree ?! >that is "hear-say" and I did "hear" what Christophe "said". ok - i believe you. you are right and i am wrong. will buy myself 2 new ears. >Then I assume you believe it will rise to #1 on the SSDF when it blows out >all those other "crafty/bob hyatt" paradigm programs? :) sure it will. OK Carroll - or how was the name ? famous gun fight. burt lancaster, bones and gambit-tiger blows them away... >Can you spell hyperbole? vaporware? nonsense? The "new paradigm" is >a modified evaluation function, as directly stated by the author. It is >not a new search paradigm. New search extensions unused before. Just some >speculative additions to a pretty decent evaluation. > >That doesn't qualify as a "new paradigm" by any definition of the word I >can find in my dictionary. Of course, don't let that stop you... you don't see the new paradigm. because you are part of the old one. it makes no sense to try to argue or convince part/people of the old paradigm that the new paradigm even exists. they don't see anything. thats the reason they die out. Kuhn's View: Crisis - Problems arise which the paradigm can't solve. Revolution - Provides a new paradigm which can solve these problems. Prescience - Normal science (done within prevailing paradigm) Crisis - Revolution According to Kuhn, science is not the steady, cumulative acquisition of knowledge. Instead, it is "a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions." And in those revolutions, it is where, "one conceptual world view is replaced by another." For example, Einstein's theory of relativity could challenge Newton's concepts of physics. Lavoisier's discovery of oxygen could sweep away earlier ideas about phlogiston, the imaginary element believed to cause combustion. Galileo's supposed experiments with wood and lead balls dropped from the Leaning Tower of Pisa could banish the Aristotelian theory that bodies fell at a speed proportion to their weight. And Darwin's theory of natural selection could overthrow theories of a world governed by design. As a result of these revolutions came Kuhn's Normal science and Crisis science. Normal science according to Kuhn is considered the paradigm and in the paradigm there consist the exemplar, theory, tacit (learning by practices), and the anomalies. The exemplar is the set of procedures or rules that prove or disprove the paradigm. Normal science extends the paradigm to new examples. But sometime the exemplar does not bring about the truth, it does not prove the paradigm. the examplar = SSDF list, ICC blitz rating lists, win/lose tournaments, bean-counter programs. The theory = the Hyatt bean-counter concept, alpha/beta, materialistic search. The anomolies = games against strong humans, sacrifice attacks etc. This is where Kuhn's second theory comes into play. Kuhn's second theory is the Crisis theory. The Crisis theory comes into play when the exemplar becomes an anomaly. Anomaly occurs when an exemplar does not prove that paradigm. Kuhn's crisis theory is that, use what went wrong in the exemplar, the anomaly, and create a new exemplar. The exemplar (SSDF list, ICC blitz ratings, bean-counter programs) says 2650 ELO, but the programs don't play that way !!! SSDF ratings become an anomoly. Programs can't understand king attack or sacrifice. Use what went wrong (no king attack knowledge or dynamic chess knowledge) to make new exemplar (Chess System Tal 2). Kuhn argued that the typical scientist was not an objective, free thinker and skeptic. Rather, he was a somewhat conservative individual who accepted what he was taught and applied his knowledge to solving the problems that came before him. The problem was that the typical scientist did not question how and why. isn't the above description a perfect one of the censored forum, CCC and the people in it? so they all use the Crafty sources. And make NO progress, because it, and Hyatt, stops them from thinking. In such periods, he maintained, scientists tend to resist research that might signal the development of a new paradigm, like the work of the astronomer Aristarchus, who theorized in the third century B.C. that the planets revolve around the Sun. But, Professor Kuhn said, situations arose that the paradigm could not account for or that contradicted it. The new paradigm cannot build on the one that precedes it, he maintained. It can only supplant it. The two, he said, were "incommensurable." >I'm watching these "results". At the momemt, I am much more concerned with >the results of the new Fritz program. It looks very serious. pah - weak program. don't care. there will be a championship and they will participate again with many programs, maybe next time not 5 programs but 8 or 22. Let them participate with 30 programs all sold by chessbase and running in the same user-interface. and they will not win the title. because quantity can never defeat quality. they try so, but they will not win. >Somebody doesn't understand. I don't think it is me. of course you don't think it is you. this made you part of old paradigm. NEW paradigm people recognize when they do not understand. and they learn from mistakes by making mistakes. old paradigm people do not make mistakes and know anything better. they know what was and what could be. like newton. would have been a big thing if he would have met einstein ... >Thorsten, I can't tell you how bad you sound writing that kind of stuff. >Before you rattle on and on about "the new thing" why don't you ask >Christophe about what he did differently? Or look up the post where he >explained this in the CCC archives. yes sir. ok. understand. nothing will change in your point of view. everything remains the same bob. you know anything that could happen, and nothing will ever change or surprise you. thats perfect ! pretty perfect. i hope you can teach us about this perfect mechanistic world you live in, where the results count, and the evaluations are accurate. >You talk about it reverently, as though it is some sort of sensational >break-through. And you sound silly in doing so, when everybody here read >Christophe's explanation and knows what part of his program he modified to >produce "gambit-tiger". right. i am silly and you are wise. thats what i expected before. no problem for me. i will - no matter what you think - concentrate on the silly things, and let you concentrate on the important and wise things. no problem for me. >>thats a pity. i thought professors would be interested in new ideas >>and have the job to promote development. >The first issue is to be able to _recognize_ "new ideas". I'm pretty >good at that. This doesn't qualify. Several of us have tried lots of >speculative things to produce exciting attacks. It isn't new. All the >way back to the super-constellation. > >Seems to me a good test would have been to jump into the CCT2 tournament, >if you are so sure it would have won. i have no idea what CCT2 tournament is. >I agree. >"oh man..." i see ! better AMEN instead of OMEN !!
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.