Author: Joe Besogn
Date: 08:51:08 11/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 2000 at 11:28:10, Michael Neish wrote: > >>>>old paradigm programs have no idea how to evaluate chaos. > >I'm wondering about this comment, which has cropped up in different forms a few >times in the last day or two. Could you please explain why chaotic Chess should >necessarily be any better than stable or ordered Chess? No. As a style it is subjective. Either you prefer it, or you don't. Fronm a chess programmnig perspective, parts of the search tree will be chaotic. More in some positions and less in others, but always there. Therefore any program which is unable to evaulate chaos has to be a quiescent paradigm program, attempting to extend until quiet position reached. New paradigm says that some parts of the search tree are effectively fog for great depths, and that old paradigm therefore fails at these points. Some positions are >quiet whatever you do, and intentionally destabilising them for the sake of >creating a situation that conventional programs can't handle can easily >backfire, especially if your program is tactically weaker. Obviously. So it is a question of style. Also a question of handling both chaos and deep search. Also obvious. Obvious five years ago when first posited. > >By the way, by your tone it seems that you believe others are incapable of >understanding your ideas. Actually, I suspect they're pretty obvious to anyone; Right. The only thing that stops them being 'obvious' is the resistance of old paradigm leader, Bob. >people are just according them the skepticism that should be given to anything >that challenges conventional wisdom, Correct and absolutely to be expected. Skepticism is fine. Skepticism on the grounds of "I tried that and it doesn't work" every time the topic gets mentioned, when actually the statement "I didn't try that, and I don't want it to work because I can't claim ownership over the idea and it doesn't fit with my cautious and risk-free mentality, and I'm going to trash it every time it gets mentioned and hang on to my status and position for all time" would be closer to the "truth". >and until you prove your case irrefutably Oh, god. I don't care to prove it. It's unproveable anyway. I only want to prove it to me. I did that. >with real, consistent results, Oh, god. You mean the lists? I don't care about the silly lists !!! >not just strong words and claims, Oh, god. It's an IDEA. I like ideas. Especially ideas with lives of their own. This is a great idea. Its time has come. I love to watch it. I love to see it attacked. The more stupid the attack, the better I feel. > you have no >hope of bringing the masses round to your view. I don't care about the thoughts of the masses. I'm not Al Gore, Bush, Stalin, Hitler or anyone else. The mass opinion is a complete indifference to me. They can think whatever they want. I'm not running for any elections. I don't have any point to prove to you or anyone else. I don't have anything to win, or anything to lose. I don't operate to your rule set. > >Mike.
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.