Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 00:42:50 12/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2005 at 03:11:18, Ed Murak wrote: >On December 15, 2005 at 03:00:42, Stephen A. Boak wrote: > >>On December 15, 2005 at 02:35:39, Chrilly Donninger wrote: >> >>[..] >> >>>One example for the practical consequences can be found in Rybka: >>>Probably a lot >>>of users think, when they choose the personality "very positionally", that the >>>programm has - in contrast to "very tactically" - more chess knowledge, that >>>there is a trade-off between knowledge and search-speed. >> >>>In fact the 4 personality settings change 2 numbers. These numbers influence >>>only the pruning/extension mechanism of the search tree. The "very tactical" >>>settings prune less than the "very positional" one. I have not tested the >>>differences in the playing styles, but from the theoretical considerations it >>>should indeed influence the style. The terms "tactical, positional" are just >>>labels. One has to give it a name. >> >>>The same is probably done in all other programms. E.g. an old Nimzo-version of >>>mine had already such a setting. The personalities were called aggressive, >>>solid.. These settings changed the shape of the tree in a similar way. Maybe >>>Rybka is a Nimzo clone :-) >>> >>>Chrilly >> >>Dr. Donninger, >> >>I understand pedagogical style and humor in education, but I request some >>clarification feedback, please. > > [snip] > >>You also recently (previously) wrote: >> >>"Rybka has Bitboards. But thats mentioned in the Readme File. So I am telling >>here no big news. >> >>But I really want to avoid to say some real internals. >> >>First of all I have not looked on all of Rybkas details. Would be much too much >>work and also boring. >> >>I wanted just to have the big picture. And even if I would know something >>important, I could/would not post it. >> >>This would be against the rules. >> >>Chrilly" >> >>Referring to your later posting (at top), and your recent (previous) posting, >>quoted above: >> >>1) Have you changed your mind about disassembling another programmer's work and >>speaking about "real internals"? > > >To see that the 4-position "Playing Style" (i.e. personality) switch directly >governs exactly two variables is trivial disassembly. > >To see what these two variables control (as Dr Donninger says, pruning and >extension) is less trivial. > >But are these "real internals", Mr Boak? You definitely understand the question, but I was hoping not to answer it myself. :) That is why _I_ asked for clarification. > > > >>2) Are you not speaking, in your opinion, about "something important"? > > >:-) :-) One good smiley deserves another! In this case, a second one has been earned, IMO, therefore: :-) > >IMO (I am just a beginner in this), yes. True, you have only just begun ... [to try to convince us]. But you haven't completed the task for some reason. :) > > > >>3) Are you breaking "the rules"? > > >We all know there can be unspoken and unwritten rules, and about what. I'll bite. About what? Ulterior motives? >Juridical >rules do not concern us, are irrelevant here and I ignore them. Agree 100%. > >When Dr Donninger originally wrote [to do] "This would be against the rules", >that relates to _his_ perception _then_ of what the rules were _then_. Seems very likely. :) In which case, you wouldn't want to try to guess his thoughts on the matter, now would you. :) > >That gives three degrees of freedom. Ah, the compound statement is difficult to pin down. As the compound question is difficult to answer. :) Freedom allows escape ... if necessary. :) > >My above thinking is suitably mechanistic, I hope. Most certainly. Please excuse me for the >intervention. Enjoyed the interlude, thanks. Come back when you get a Power of Attorney, and we can talk more. Much more. :) A tip o' the cap & many smiley regards, --Steve =:0) > > > >>Thanks in advance, >>--Steve
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.