Author: Joe Besogn
Date: 10:45:50 11/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 2000 at 12:17:20, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On November 10, 2000 at 10:43:03, Joe Besogn wrote:
>
>>On November 10, 2000 at 10:32:33, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On November 10, 2000 at 07:58:47, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>>>
>>>>On November 09, 2000 at 22:51:40, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I let crafty chug for a while after Qe7, and it likes e5, with a score that
>>>>>is not much different from the Kh1 score. IE it doesn't see any loss of
>>>>>material that It reports... this was through depth=12...
>>>>>
>>>>>Here is the 13 ply output:
>>>>>
>>>>> 13 10:54 -1.39 39. ... e5 40. Rh4 e4 41. Bb6 Qf6 42.
>>>>> Bxd8 Rxd8 43. Qxf6 gxf6 44. Kf2 Rc8
>>>>> 45. Re2 Nf5 46. Rg4+ Kh7
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>this only shows IMO that crafty is a little old-fahioned.
>>>>Buy hiarcs or cstal or gambit-tiger if you want to find out
>>>>about the position. as i said:
>>>>
>>>>old paradigm programs have no idea how to evaluate chaos.
>>>
>>>
>>>I notice your list of "new-paradigm" programs is growing. When does it
>>>subsume _all_ of the programs?
>>>
>>>
>>>>you can forget them in those positions.
>>>>
>>>>the only reason hiarcs or cstal are not killing anybody is: they are
>>>>both outsearched. but for analysis, this works cause there they
>>>>get enough time.
>>>>
>>>>try to defend (the lost position and the lost old paradigm).
>>>>
>>>>i know: you know the earth is a disk. i will not be able to convince you
>>>>it isn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>That is maybe your problem. If you only watch TV, you might be convinced it
>>>is just a disc. If you dive in and do _research_ you find the _truth_.
>>
>>What is "the truth" - are there any other "truths"? I think the problem is that
>>these researchers to whom you refer find the truth that they are looking for,
>>within the framework of the set of rules and procedures that have been
>>established in their particular field. It is as if they all only "watch TV". You
>>too.
>>
>>>
>>>note that hand-waving is _not_ research...
>>
>>Thorsten never agreed to the same rule set as you. He looks in different places
>>and according to different criteria.
>>
>>The fact that you refer to this as "flag-waving" is your problem and misfortune.
>
>Missed quote. "hand-waving" _not_ "flag waving". Hand-waving is what someone
>does to distract you from what is really going on. A magician is a good
>example. Use his hands to distract you from what is _really_ happening.
>
>That fits this example perfectly.
Considerable effort has been put into trying to get you to see that what you
think "is happening" is different from he thinks "is happening". Different
planets and stuff.
You define another concept of what "is _really_ happening" and then, arrogantly,
claim ownership over it. Have another "Ostrich" award.
>
>
>
>>Simply revealing that you're not open to new ideas from outside your frame.
>>Shame, apart from that you're a very able guy.
>
>Perhaps one day you will find out just how "able". I generally try _everything_
>I hear about. conspiracy numbers? been there. singular extensions? done that
>once, doing it again tomorrow sometime (tomorrow -> metaphor for the future,
>here, _not_ Saturday). Speculation in the eval. Done it before, doing it
>now, will do more in the future.
And wrote the book?
Whoops.
Perhaps more conservative than some. More
>liberal than others. But speculation is speculation, differing only in degree.
>
Speculation, other than building to another's blueprint, involves a change of
mind-set from where you are now.
I hope, if you do it, that you try and understand the ideas, words and concepts,
and don't just copy or use some sort of automated learning system to set
paramaters.
Change your mind-set to one of evaluating the unevaluate-able, and *guess* at
the parameter values.
In other words, live the new paradigm ideas.
>Now I need to return to work on my program before it too, becomes subsumed by
>the ever-growing list of 'new paradigm' programs. But in passing, what about
>these:
>
>Rebel
>normal tiger
>Fritz
>Nimzo
>Shredder
>Wchess
>genius
>chessmaster
>Ferret
>
>the many freeware engines.
>
>Which side of this "new paradigm" do you think the above are?
I don't know. I'm interested in ideas, not artifacts. I listen to the words, not
study the numbers.
>
>We already know you guys
Er, hello. Zarg calling Hyatt .... which 'guys'? Do we have a conspiracy now?
include GT and CSTal as "new"... and have recently
>added Hiarcs to the mix. Who else?
Why ask me? I don't have any idea about Hiarcs.
CSTal is a new paradigm program, imo. The programmer of Tiger uses new paradigm
terminology as if he understands it, not as if he is parroting it. Therefore I
assume he is building a new paradigm program.
>
>Or is this a case of "new -> {set of all programs} - {hyatt's program}"
I doubt it. Most unlikely. You don't get martyr status just yet.
>
>that probably comes pretty close to the "new paradigm" twisted definition
>being bandied about so often.
>
>Ie it is less about something really new, and more about "Hyatt is old-guard,
>what he is doing _can't_ be right."
Probably it is about both. But the old-guard position is one you created for
yourself.
> Maybe you are right. Maybe not. One way
>to find out...
No way to find out. Kuhn said there is no independent third-party adjudicator.
If you want, you can always stick to your position. More likely is that you'll
realise that your position is hopeless, that you've spouted bollocks for years,
and you'll quietly change your program, when you've worked out what to do.
Why haven't you banned this account yet, btw?
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.