Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 10:07:11 11/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
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. I have seen no evidence that Christophe's program does this. The notion of quiescent search is that you don't stop your search after QxB with a score of +3. You see if the opponent can make it -6 by taking the thing. That seems like a neutral thing to do, regardless of how aggressive or speculative you want to make your program, and I don't see how the notion of a quiescent search is connected to this discussion at all. I don't see how you can say that a quiescent search leads to quiet positions. If we called a quiescent search a "chaos" search, it would not lead to chaotic positions. A quiescent search doesn't try to remove chaos, it tries to understand it. The positions at any node in the quiescent search can be evaluated however "accurately" you want, according to any criteria you want to use. bruce >---------------------------------- > >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. 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. > >> >> >>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.