Author: Ed Murak
Date: 01:19:20 12/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2005 at 03:42:50, Stephen A. Boak wrote:
>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
Thank you for your above guess.
>, but I was hoping not to answer it myself. :)
But I thought it wisest never to ask a question unless one knew the answer
already. This could correlate with why I remain a beginner in almost all things
>That is why _I_ asked for clarification.
I am not a proxy here, only trying to learn about chess, programming, logic and
rules. So suitably caveated, could I essay that "real internals" is a term so
free from precise definition or refinability that it could mean anything at all.
Indeed its meaning could be sensitive to environmental considerations and so
fluctuate as needed.
I am sure nothing useful I might by chance have thought would not already have
been considered by Dr Donninger prior to his employing the term "real
internals".
I mean, how 'internal' does internal have to get for it to be 'real' (as
distinct from superficial, I would imagine)?
My personal view is seeing that something is controlling the pruning / extension
parameters is seeing something pretty internal.
One could say, that by inserting "real" before "internals", Dr Donninger
provided himself in advance with a fourth degree of freedom.
But I am just a beginner [etc.]
>>>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: :-)
Please do not jest, this is not CTF.
>>IMO (I am just a beginner in this), yes.
>
>True, you have only just begun ... [to try to convince us].
What does it take to convince you that I am a beginner? Mistakes? You could
find them aplenty in-
http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?470390
>But you haven't completed the task for some reason. :)
I have a poor memory but try to learn quickly. Please stay on-topic, though.
I understood -your- topic to be counting Dr Donninger's number of degrees of
freedom. The three most obvious I gave already, and #4 above, and whether
"something important" adds 1 or 2 more due to the matrix is really the question.
So that totals 5.5, say. Non-integer degrees of freedom sorts out the
statisticians.
>>>3) Are you breaking "the rules"?
>>
>>
>>We all know there can be unspoken and unwritten rules, and about what.
>
>I'll bite.
Little fish, little fish.
>About what?
Well, finding ideas of others by peeking directly - like a brute force attack
effect?
Data-mining, behavior observation are other means less intrusive.
Also auto-testing, which I was sure Dr Donninger could remind one of in a
follow-up, and this duly happened.
>Ulterior motives?
The furtherment of chessical knowledge, of course.
Why - could you possibly you have had something else in mind?
I have advised the brilliant author of RYBKA to ensure that randoms bits of
assembler, self-modifying code and other little fish (red herrings in this case)
and irrelevant bitboards all somehow find their way into RYBKA to make any
innocent peeking a more challenging or rewarding pastime.
But, he is a purist! He thinks I am but a murak.
>>Juridical
>>rules do not concern us, are irrelevant here and I ignore them.
>
>Agree 100%.
Yes. Both semiotic rule-making bodies (US Congress and EU something-or-other)
tried something with reverse engineering and disassembly blockage as you know.
Might as well try to stop research into stem cells... ooops....
>>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. :)
Yes, it was implied. He did not need to add words, like the "real" to
"internals" or qualify with "something important" to create a sufficient vector
space.
The real question is, why share these here? Furtherment, naturally.
>In which case, you wouldn't want to try to guess his thoughts on the matter, now
>would you. :)
I can barely guess my own thoughts, sir, let alone those of experts when I am
such a patzer at this. Having mastered en passant just yesterday, it would be
silly for me to say more, so anything more I say is deemed to be silly in
advance by me. That is worthy of Uriah Heep.
>>That gives three degrees of freedom.
>
>
>
>Ah, the compound statement is difficult to pin down.
As you now see, I have established 5 or 6 degrees of freedom. So in 5-space or
6-space, Dr Donninger has more maneuvering room than someone who omits
"distinct" from a statement of a problem could possibly need.
Purely hypothetically speaking, of course, as I am a proven idiot.
>As the compound question
>is difficult to answer. :)
>
>Freedom allows escape ... if necessary. :)
Be careful. A sharp tongue could cut you, sometimes, Mr Boak. Or trip you up,
if long enough.
Attention!
I spoke nothing of "escape". Only of "freedom", which in context ("degrees of"
is a technical term.
>>My above thinking is suitably mechanistic, I hope.
>
>
->Most certainly.
When "those doctors" have the means to start disassembling our mental programs,
I think solving 32-piece tablebase issues won't concern us any more.
>>Please excuse me for the intervention.
>
>
>Enjoyed the interlude, thanks.
There is simply no accounting for taste, unlike in CTF, where there is simply no
taste to account for.
>Come back when you get a Power of Attorney, and we can talk more. Much more.
>:)
I somehow don't detect Dr Donninger reaching out to grant anyone one, and most
certainly not a clumsy ignoramus nobody such as myself. The thought is
preposterous.
>A tip o' the cap & many smiley regards,
I am glad to have been of any service, to you at least. I think Dr Donninger
has for the moment left the room, and no doubt HYDRA requires attention.
If I were he, I might even be casting a glance at the intricacies of pruning /
search-extensions .... but, I am not.
Back to Wikipedia so I can learn what a Debugger is. It sounds exciting!
>--Steve =:0)
With a full 5.5 degrees of freedom, a better emoticon could not have been
chosen?
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.