Author: Joe Besogn
Date: 03:43:11 11/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 2000 at 06:34:34, Andrew Williams wrote: >On November 09, 2000 at 05:20:39, Joe Besogn wrote: > >>On November 08, 2000 at 18:28:29, Andrew Williams wrote: >>>To summarise: if you want to place yourself in the august company of Kuhn's >>>scientific revolutionaries you first have to define what your "new paradigm" >>>is. You could start by distinguishing clearly between the characteristics >>>of an old-paradigm program and a new-paradigm program. >> >>From a post a couple of days ago: >>If I had to pick one technical assumption of the old paradigm which is turned on >>its head by the new - I'ld pick the concept of quiescence. The old paradigm says >>search to quiescence, then evaluate the 'simple' quiet position, don't stop the >>search in the unclear. The new paradigm says drive into the unclear and evaluate >>with knowledge. Unclear is a good place for the new paradigm, it's a killer for >>the old. >>---------------------------------- >> >>Clear enough for you? It seems very clear to me. But, pedantically ... >> >>a) at each node an evaluation function which contains the chess knowledge of the >>programmer, I assume a reasonably competent chess playing programmer; in >>particular knowledge of the king attack situation, with risky guesses as to >>quantising king attack in terms of pawns; knowledge of all pins and all square >>attacks, which pieces are attacked and with what danger, an attack-biased >>evaluation which does not pay too much attention to defenders, the usual passed >>pawn speculative and non-speculative code, etc. >> >>b) realisation that old-paradigm q-search is broken, fails to recognise unquiet >>positions, is hopelessly geared to material only, has no concept of king >>attacks. >> >>c) realisation that nullmove pruning within a materialistic search makes life >>easier for a sacrifice attacking opponent, since the nullmove effectively >>decreases the old-paradigm programs depth in the key sacrificial lines, >>therefore reducing its ability to 'see' danger. >> >>d) realisation that the measurement system of the old paradigm is hopelessly >>flawed. >> >>(i) that the programs play at tactical? 3000, and positional? 1900, and that >>trying to express this as one number is silly. >> >>(ii) that rating system indications that programs are 2500 or 2600 and >>competitive with GMs is silly. >> >>e) realisation that more and more search doesn't help against strong humans. >> >>f) realisation that with programs getting 'stronger', rating lists and rating >>differences become irrelevant - style becomes important. >> >>b,c,d,e,f are old paradigm anomolies that are unable to be solved within that >>framework of bigger-faster-better-materialism. >> >>a - knowledge and quantisation (rather than ignoring) of risky situations, fixes >>to greater or lesser extents, the anomolies, including the major anomoly of the >>q-search. >> >>The reason these are significant paradigm shifts is that the old paradigm >>representative-in-chief says: >> >>1. q-search doesn't need to consider checks, nor does it need to be fixed to see >>pins, because doing so renders the program slow, and the search explosive, and a >>few errors never harmed anyone, since q-search is inherently error prone anyway. >> >>2. it is too risky being speculative, or applying scores to risky situations, >>because you'll toss a piece and lose in the endgame. better to be 'accurate' or >>as 'near accurate as possible'. >> >>new paradigm says: evaluate everything, especially risky situations, don't worry >>about stopping the search when not quiet, since we trust our evaluation >>function, in any case, quietness must consider king factors via the evaluation >>function, accuracy is a false god, there's no such thing, guess. >> >> >>Now, you seem to think that "open source" is required to discuss these issues. > >You have misunderstood. I was arguing *purely* about your identification with >Kuhn. Kuhn was arguing with a tradition that said "Leave it to Science. Science >is dispassionate and rational. The strongest ideas will always win out with >Science because the scientific method, requiring full disclosure, will ensure >it." Kuhn pointed out that the scientific method did *not* achieve everything >that was claimed for it. My point was that if you're not reporting in detail >everything you do, it's harder to complain if the tradition you are working >in rejects your ideas. However, this post is an *excellent* description of >your ideas. I'm sure I'm not alone in finding it interesting. > >>I think that is nuts. There is no black and white way to encapsulate the >>knowledge, every programmer will do it his own way. There is no prescription for >>evaluation values in risky situations, guess, each his own. Even with source, >>all you eventually get are *conceptual* descriptions in your head using words. >>Reading algorithmic source gives you no real *feel* of what happens. Listening >>to the words of new paradigm programs designers works better, faster. >> >>I guess the new paradigm says "do it", quit trying to read blueprints. >> >> >>Perhaps, en passant >>>you could discuss whether an old-paradigm program can be converted to a new- >>>paradigm program, or whether it really needs a new start from the ground up. >> >>Anyway you want. Everything is possible. >> >>>I'm not asking you to share any secrets here. if it's not possible to express >>>it without giving too much away, so be it - but you could stop using Kuhn's >>>views to insult people. >> >>Your's is the insult, this is an on-topic, non-insulting account which tries, >>despite numerous attacks on it and attempts to get it to fly off sideways, to >>stick to issues of Kuhn's ideas applicable to computer chess. >> >>Thank you. >> >>> > >If you want to believe that I am more insulting than you, you are welcome >to believe that. > >Andrew
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.