Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 11:29:09 02/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 12, 2004 at 14:03:49, Dann Corbit wrote: >On February 12, 2004 at 13:49:38, Bob Durrett wrote: > >> >>The short answer: "From some smart people." >> >>It seems to me that chess algorithms are like scientific theories. They come >>and they go. First was the theory that the Earth was flat and then round. >>Algorithms are like that too. Chess algorithms must be no exception. > >Chess algorithms are somewhat like that. When you only utilize a small portion >of the earth's surface, a flat model will do nicely. After all, with a 7000 >mile diameter sphere, a 100 mile radius has very little bulge to it. Later, >people notice that the earth really is a sphere and change their models. This >works fine for centuries, and then satellites and other objects notice that the >earth is not really a sphere at all but an ellipsoid. An ellipsoidal model >works pretty well for a while, but then the earthquake calculations don't work >quite right. So some careful measurements show that the earth is really an >eccentric ellipsoid. > >>There is something higher than an algorithm. Worship of a given algorithm seems >>terribly dumb to me. > >I have never met an algorithm worshipper. I think you made it up. >I have seen people use alpha-beta variants over minimax, since it examines >sqrt(N) nodes instead of N nodes. > >>Better would be to "worship" the creators of the >>algorithms, but than seems dumb too. > >Worship of the algorithm creators is pretty stupid as well. However, they do >deserve a lot of respect because: >1. They spent the time to solve a problem that others found difficult >2. They bothered to explain their idea to other people. > >>There has to be something at a higher level. Maybe that "something" is >>unconstrained creative human thought by someone capable of seeing "the big >>picture." > >It's called math. There are things higher than that too, but math will do for >now. > >>Surely all chess programmers wish to be that something at a higher level. It is >>only human. > >I have no desire to become mathematics, although mathematical systems underlie >everything I do, say and think. That's because mathematics is the queen of >science. > >>Of course, there will always be those mindless "algorithm >>worshippers." : ) > >Who are these people? > >>It has been said that "If you cannot create good computer code, you should not >>post bulletins at the Computer Chess Club bulletin board." Obviously that's >>wrong. > >Lots of people say lots of things that are wrong. I don't see any relevance. > >>It may be time to start looking for new algorithms. > >It's always time to start looking for new algorithms. The hard part is finding >them. I invented a disk based sorting algorithm that is far faster than >replacement selection, but it took me a decade to do it. > >> After all, alpha and beta >>are only the first two letters in the Greek alphabet. What about the rest? > >If you understood how the algorithm worked, you would be standing in admiration >of it (as opposed to worship). Making light of the algorithm is silly to me. >The current alternative is minimax. > >>It's time for a new generation of chess software which can both play at a higher >>level [planning, etc.] and do new things. > >It will come. Knowledge expands exponentially over time. > >>Just my two cents worth. >> >>Bob D. > >You seem to want to criticize current practice. However, your criticism is not >constructive criticism for several reasons. First of all, you have not >identified a problem. "I don't like alpha-beta" is not a problem. Second, you >have not offered any sort of alternative idea except "Do something better." >Do you really imagine that nobody is looking? Do you further imagine that if we >could find something better we would not use it? > >There are one hundred people in this forum at least who have thought long and >hard about alpha-beta. So far, most improvements have been incremental. > >Here is the nature of the problem: > >How do you distill an exponential amount of information into something that is >not exponential? > >Imagine a game where each player can make 10 different moves only. After 6 >plies, that is one million moves minimax would have to examine. Alpha beta >would examine about one thousand. That's pretty good. > >Now do you see why people rave about it? > >If we could find something where the nodes examined grew only polynomially >(which is still pretty fast) chess would be solved overnight. You make some good points, as I expected. Of course, the problem remains unchanged. It matters not who said what or why. Only the solutions will matter. Incidentally, I do not see much discussion here about ideas for really new algorithms. Bob D.
This page took 0.01 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.