Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 05:31:11 04/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2001 at 13:31:04, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Same with our issue. Paradigm change exist, but not from the blue, but as >progressive acumulation of steps that, when reaching a clear-cut new point, >appears as a definitively new thing. A paradigm in this case means a generally accepted perspective on computer chess. So there's no requirement that it must change in small steps, even though that is generally the case. The problem with the paradigm shift notion is that there isn't any change whatsoever in the general perception of the goal of computer chess. The only change might be in the means, but they have existed for many years. In my opinion there are two general approaches. One of them is to emulate the human chess game as much as possible, while the second one tries to make computers play chess on their own terms. They're not easily distinguishable at this point in time IMO, because they generally use the same methods with minor, but important, differences concerning specific emphasis on various aspects (LOL, one of the most unspecific sentences I've ever written :-). I'll try to be clearer. You could say that the "new" paradigm uses a more human approach to evaluating a position. Eg. small search trees by heavy selectivity and basic knowledge about mounting an attack and carrying it out. The other type is more calculational, because that is the advantage that a computer has over a human being (in some cases). So the actual difference is very little IMO. All this paradigm shift of the mind and black and white is utter nonsense. The current trend is that every new program with attacking skills is a member of the new paradigm club. This is of course nonsense. >Is DJ this clear cut new point? Or Tiger? Or non yet? We must wait and see. I'm virtually a 100% certain that it isn't a new point. Amir Ban is "just" a brilliant programmer, so it would be safe to assume that it will be strong with or without aid from a new paradigm. Most of the new paradigm nonsense is a confidence booster and a legitimacy builder. Winning just isn't enough, it has to be revolutionary at the same time. Mainly because winning would be an imitation of the goals of capitalism, which is an awful sin for some. So if the replacement has to be justified it must be a superior concept. An invention instead of a competing product. Regards, Mogens
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.