Author: Joe Besogn
Date: 09:54:32 11/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 2000 at 11:47:40, Bob Durrett wrote: >What's wrong with this idea, other than the fact that someone else may have >thought of it first? > I don't know. I'm not even going to read it. Because my opinion on your idea is irrelevant. The world is utterly full of people with ideas. Big, long ideas, full of big long words. If your idea is any good, and you have any talent, you will do it anyway, in spite of all the opposition every failed-person gives you. More likely, and I don't know, because I don't know you, your idea will be a "why-doesn't-somebody-else-do-this-idea" idea. Such ideas are nearly the most useless things on the planet. The most useless thing on the planet is asking others to comment on your ideas, because, I can absolutely guarantee, all the comments will either be "good idea (actually means I don't understand, but I'm being polite)" or "your idea is utterly stupid (actually means I didn't understand it either, I'm just getting my kicks by humiliating you)". The next most stupid thing if you actually do your idea (which is very rare, and something you should be praised for, for actually getting off your arse and backing yourself, a very unusual feature nowadays), is to then get somehow dependant on other people's opinions of the resulting artifact. Most people have a fantastic desire to trash everything they don't feel part of. If they paid you for it, btw, their inclination to believe they can do whatever they want to you, since they somehow bought you along with the artifact, has to be experienced to be believed. Therefore, if your feeling of self is dependant on other's opinions, make spare artifacts, give them to the noisy people, and hope (it usually works) that they will fawn all over you and your offerings for ever more. If your idea is any good, and you had the talent, you will be rich, or have status or get the girl, whatever. Otherwise it wasn't really worth bothering. If it worked, you will be utterly hated by all the losers. Because you exposed them. Hope that helped. Oh, yeah, if you don't do your idea, or some idea, yourself, you haven't lived. Hope that helps too. > >Consider the possibility of having a block of software [a module] dedicated to a >specific situation on the chessboard. For example, consider a situation where >an attack is indicated by the position on the chessboard. Consider, also, >having another block of software dedicated to some other situation, such as >where the opponent’s position is cramped. Going further, consider having quite >a few modules of this type for each of the situations that can occur on the >chessboard, such that a different general strategy is indicated for each. > >Each module could be almost dormant during normal play, almost asleep on the >hard disk, taking up insignificant computer resources, such as processor time or >RAM space. Nowadays, people have very large hard drives, so space occupied on >hard drives should not be a concern. > >A very small bit of software dedicated to each module would reside on RAM and >would operate but would do so only at a very low level since this software would >have only a very small task, i.e. to monitor certain parameters. For example, >the software on RAM associated with attack would monitor certain parameters or >features. As a trivial example, consider the Advance Variation of the French >Defense. After just two moves for each side, the pawn structure indicates that >White should play for a kingside attack. > >Should the RAM-resident software associated with the attack module detect that >an attack might be worth considering, then a part of the Attack Module would >“wake up,” moving at least in part to RAM, and taking up a greater percentage of >the processor’s time. This software would then start evaluating NEW parameters >or features associated with the task of evaluating the appropriateness of >beginning an attack. > >Should the new, more complete, evaluations strongly indicate that an attack is >appropriate, then more of the Attack Module would “wake up” [i.e. be transferred >to RAM and start using a greater percentage of the processor’s time. At this >point, the RAM-resident portion of the Attack Module would be more sophisticated >and might begin evaluation of candidate attack scenarios, as well as doing a >more complete set of evaluations, including piece placement, etc. > >After one or more additional stages, the time might come when most of the >software normally used in the chess engine would be almost inactive [bypassed or >“put on hold”] and the attack module would be using almost all of the processor >and RAM. > >This idea, as presented above, is possibly too simplistic since the issues >associated with competition between modules and turning off of modules after >their usefulness has ended has not been discussed above. Also, in certain >cases, more than one module might be at least partially awake at the same time. > [details, details, . . . ] > >In this concept, it is seen that there could be MANY parameters, etc., which >would not be evaluated in normal operation but which would be after their >associated module had awakened. The only limitations on the number of parameters >would be the patience and stamina of the programmers, assuming effectively >unlimited space available on the hard disk. > >Generally, the more complex the total package the more opportunities there would >be for learning. The total number of “parameters” could be almost limitless >since only a few would actively be being evaluated at any one time. “Tweaking >of Parameters” could take on a new meaning in this case. To go one step >further, the modules could, themselves, be modular. The program could learn >when to activate a module or sub-module.
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.