Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:47:21 09/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2002 at 23:32:07, Matthew Hull wrote: >On September 22, 2002 at 15:48:06, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>Well, you should _never_ write off Rolf as the new shooting star of CC, but >>frankly, take my bets on that verdict: >> >>This "new" program is the new styled version of some known program of the past. >> >>That is the only sound explanation possible. > > >Rolf, you suprise me a little here. > >Is it not more proper to say from a [ah,hem] scientific standpoint (if I may be >so bold), that the possibilities are as follows: >(A) it is the work of a >prodigy, Here it goes (sure after the prog has been lounched by now, but nevertheless): prodigy not impossible but improbable because if the prog wins agains all the pros this cant be done at least by an absolutely new and unknown genius. So if known, such a genius might be able to do it. or (B) it is a hidden work long in the making by an eccentric, >reclusive programmer, That was my own idea above. Likely. ChrisW, MartyH, BruceM and EdS come to mind. :) or (C) it is a funded project by a commercial software >company currently in trials, That is just a variation of my own idea. In the two cases (B, C) it's easy to find out. or (D) it's a knock off by a faker who gets his joy >in life by reading all the hubbub about himself in forums like CCC. Also here I wonder why you can think that a scientist or at least a well educated knowie can possibly be surprised by anything at all... E.g. I remember well when Dr. Hyatt talked about CSTal2. Or was it Bruce, anyway, it was never in doubt that ChrisW for instance could be able to write "conservative" code. For me the question always was why it was never even discussed here in CCC a) why someone had the self-conscience of a lone wolf to search for new ideas and b) how the concentration on hardware in CC could be tried to water down with such first attempts of alternative software solution. I'm too unexperienced to call it "knowledge". I always understood CSTal2 as aggressive tuning on speculation mode. But without a higher instance to prevent it and to continue in the classical way. Here is my own idea, interdisciplinary development perhaps; the goal should be to find a clever combination of deep calculating and paying attention strategically in certain "crucial" moments of the game. If that could be possible, machines would be much safer against strategies of human chessplayers to change the game into 'special hidden and deep intentions' mode. Unfortunately I can't tell how to find the code equivalence. Perhaps something like changing style (K-safety) just for this position. And then letting find alternatives for the "normal" solution. And then deciding what's the best. Sort of machine in the machine on a higher level of decision. Surely not a new idea, but perhaps someone gets his own inspiration just by reading this. It seems clear that machines need books of crucial middle-game positions with appropriate "solutions". In addition to opening books and endgame tables. Rolf Tueschen > >I believe Dr. Hyatt's position is more scientifically correct if I may >paraphrase, "likely not legitimate, but not impossible". > >Regards, :-) > > >> >>;) >> >>Rolf Tueschen
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.