Author: José Carlos
Date: 07:36:48 12/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2002 at 19:46:59, Martin Giepmans wrote:
>On December 23, 2002 at 19:11:10, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On December 23, 2002 at 15:25:06, Martin Giepmans wrote:
>>
>>>On December 23, 2002 at 14:57:02, Bob Durrett wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not being up-to-speed on reading programming journals in all languages, I am not
>>>>sure that the following idea is original. But I will "take my chances" in the
>>>>hope of not being Zapped too badly if it is not original. : )
>>>>
>>>>I am interested in adaptive programs, especially as the theory applies to chess
>>>>engines.
>>>>
>>>>The basic concept is to produce a program that will change itself "in a big
>>>>way," as the environment or problems being solved change. This
>>>>self-modification would take place several or many times in as short a time as
>>>>an hour.
>>>>
>>>>Still trying to stay general: How to do this?
>>>>
>>>>One way, impractical for sure, would be to have a single overall program which
>>>>was a package consisting of many specific programs. As the environment or other
>>>>factors changed, the program would be stimulated to jump from the current
>>>>specific program to the more appropriate one, with the necessary data
>>>>transferred to the new specific program. This sort of jump could occur often
>>>>and many times as the need dictated.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps a more practical approach might be to have a single program with many
>>>>parameters that could be set or reset quickly. In this scenario, the stimuli
>>>>would result in calling of a "reconfigure" program. This program would then,
>>>>very quickly, reset the parameters of the main program. In this way, the main
>>>>program would, in effect, be a new program.
>>>>
>>>>A more generalized version of the latter approach would be for the "reconfigure"
>>>>program to VERY QUICKLY make extensive modifications to the main program.
>>>>
>>>>Are these ideas any good?
>>>>
>>>>If they are, are they currently in use in existing chess engines?
>>>>
>>>>If not, does this sound like a possible improvement for the future?
>>>>
>>>>What is your "gut feel" in this matter?
>>>>
>>>>Bob D.
>>>
>>>I wonder if there is a "real" difference between
>>>
>>>(a) a program that changes itself (even in a big way)
>>>(b) a normal program that has code like "if a then x else if b then y .."
>>>
>>>Theorem: for every program of type a there is program of type b that behaves
>>>exactly the same.
>>>(ie no differences in output, although there may be differences in the "black
>>>box")
>>>
>>>True?
>>>
>>>Martin
>>
>>No
>>
>>I assume limited memory and you simply do not have enough memory to write
>>a program of type b to give the same output.
>>
>>Uri
>
>if ... then load module x else if .. then load module y ...
>Or is that a program of type (a)?
>In the happy(?) days of DOS many "normal" programs did this. It was called
>"overlay".
>
>Martin
I think it is theoretically possible (due to finite symbol universe in a
computer), but practically impossible. A wild example of program of type a:
ChangeProgram()
{
MemoryPositionOwnedByTheProgram m;
LegalAssemblyInstruction i;
LegalParameterForInstruction p;
m = RandomPosition();
i = RandomInstruction();
p = RandomNumber();
WriteInstructionToMemory(i,p,m);
}
You can't simulate that with if ... else.
José C.
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.