Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 18:21:35 11/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2000 at 19:09:04, Bruce Moreland wrote: >I don't know what you are attributing to Bob. I've heard Bob say that he >doesn't want to see wild and wrong stuff. I don't think he is against material >sacrifices in principle, he just wants to be sure that they are right. and this is the paradoxon, or contradiction. you can not know. you don't know. nobody knows. if it is a real sac, you can't see in the moment it happens. only if it is a kind of bednorz-toennissen-test-suite-position you KNOW because there is a certain key move and the position is not unclear when the key-move comes. you cannot be sure. that the move is accurate. in the moment he believes: it's not forbidden, only we have to make the thing accurate, he somehow classifies himself to be old paradigm. there is no move that is accurate. only a mate in 5, or moves from tablebases are accurate. but not normal chess positions. if you are an assurance company, and somebody buys an insurance policy, e.g. he wants to get money when he dies, for his children... you don't know when he dies. all we know is: he will die ! same with computerchess. we know it will be 1-0 / 0-1 or draw. but we don't know when. if he dies you search WHY he dies, but how can you be sure exactly. these are fuzzy things. we trust. each day in our life we believe that the next day we wake up we will still be alive. because the way we live is normally not the way as if we would know WHEN we die. we forget about death. we have to. to generate the power to do it again, and again , and again, despite death. a chess program that considers anything, trying to be accurate, will do nothing. a human beeing who behaves like an accurate chess program would be paranoid ! a person who wants to think anything in forward, and does not want to say something before it has thought any consequences in forward is not normal but ill. call this guy autistic or catatonic or whatever, but he will not be normal. old paradigm believes computers are computers and programs have to take this into account and computer programs should be accurate. i remember my grandpa always liked when i had short hair-cut, because short hair was arrucate hair ! he believed (really) that persons with long hair are unable to be correct and you should not trust in young people with long hair. somehow i think bob believes in chess programs with short hair. he cannot understand that chess programs of the future do not compute about accuracy anymore. i am a lasker fan. i like his ideas because they fit in my point of view about the world. i don't believe there is a world outside and we only have to find out HOW this world is build. IMO WE build the world with our interpretations. so for me it is wasted time to try to make a program playing accurate, when nobody knows what this is. only mate in X is accurate. but those positions are rare in a game of chess. bob tries to find out the BEST move in a position (Tarrasch), he believes this move exists. he is right. the move exists. but not for humans and computers. only for gods. chris and i do not believe in best moves. we believe the best move is relative. and that it is not important to play accurate moves. all you have to do is to play moves that lead into things YOU know. when americans go into foreign countries, the first thing they do when they want to go eat is: McDonalds ! They drink coke and all this fast-food because it's part of their roots. they eat and drink what they are used to. normal, isn't it ?! you can argue/discuss about the cultural reasons and advantages to do so, but... IMO chess programs should do the same. they should try to make their game. bob is IMO not trying to do so. he wants to visit paris, as an american, unable to speak french, and wants to order the accurate meal ! But HOW bruce ? how to order french cuisine meals if he does not understand the language ?! this is what i very often see with stupid programs. they play moves that don't lose directly, but that lose on bigger distance. and these programs don't see this. they have no idea why they lost the game. for them, suddenly their position is shit, and they cannot defend anymore, and thats it. i would call the old paradigm the materialistic paradigm. they do not trust, they do not believe , they want to proof. i would call the other paradigm the idealist. they don't want to proof anything. they sit behind their machines, drink and eat and have fun and get enthusiastic when their programs plays a strange move, and they get even happier if the move wins. especially they have much fun when they play in tournaments, and ther opponent program says : 0.00 ! and new paradigm program says : +3.56 and sacs another piece. if their program wins, they make a big party and drink much. or they be nice to their family. or talk years later about it. and when they lost the game, they forget it very soon. :-))) the interesting confrontation comes from the different (complementary) point of views. i find this cool. and i like that christophe has such a cool program too. i have great respect for programs like wchess/superconny, socrates, mephistoIII, mchess, diep, ... and i am bored to see the other programs play. i like cool programs. like cool (old) cars. i understand that bob find accurate programs cool. ok - no problem for me. but what i don't understand: if he knows that NOBODY will find out if the move is accurate, why trying to do it ? and HOW to call this effort MORE scientific then other approaches ?! hm. >We all can make up our own minds without feeling like we are enslaved to Bob. >If mine sacrifices a piece and loses, big deal. detect the fuzzyness positions nobody knows. drive directly in. why solving the position ? and HOW? when i drive in the night with my car, and there comes a curve, i do not stop driving and went out of the car to see if there is something out of the light where i could drive into. now comes bob. or materialists like him. they went out of the car, take a flashlight, look into the new direction, go back into the car, drive a few meters and again use the flashlight to light the direction the car wants to drive into. they want to know in forward if there is a problem. and they waant to be sure. maybe it could be risky to drive into ! maybe people like bob will construct car lights that light into the curves. brilliant. i will buy this car. citroen ds / sm / c5 lights the curve. brilliant ! i buy it :-))) but --- new paradigm chess program does it different. if there is darkness somewhere, drive into it ! then wait until it crashes... if you are happy, you will stand the crash. so be prepared ! airbags. whatever you need. >I've seen it a few times for sure in the past 24 hours. It plays well. I have >seen it try very hard to press attacks, but it hasn't done any long-term >sacrifices yet. what about rc6, isn't this long-term ?! its so long that we do not know for sure. and ? IMO it is not important to know in forward. let the program find a way out. trust it. don't try to find out in forward. the program WILL make it. like with you son.- you cannot make anything at the best for your son. ONE day he has to live alone, trust in him, and in yourself, because you tried to teach him, trust. if you try to be accurate with his future, he will die because you do not let him live. same with a chess program. that is new paradigm. give the program the freedom to make inaccurate moves. trust. "if you love somebody - set them free" or how was the song by police? > Another thing it seems to do is highly prize well-posted >pieces, wherever they occur. right. >It doesn't play like other programs, thank you. at least ONE person subscibes my observations. partly. whatever. you have seen this too. its easy, isn't it. >and it is very stiff on defense even when >it's getting whacked in the endgame. right. >Here are some games against a Pentium III >600 (mine on it's quad 450 Xeon): oh - i need time to replay. its 3h a.m. in germany. have to go to bed now. will replay the games tomorrow. thanks for sending them. first some hours sleep, and then i will take a look into the games...
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.