Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 03:19:38 12/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2005 at 04:19:20, Ed Murak wrote:
>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.
It's the Positional/Tactical tree variables that are not listed in the Readme
File (to my knowledge). Is that therefore 'big' news, using Uri's law of
deduction?
>>>>
>>>>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.
>
This time, however, it was _your_ question and in that I'm _not_ guessing. And,
since you never ask a question without knowing the answer [ref. below], you
obviously understand your own query, otherwise whence cometh your answer.
>
>>, 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
Similarly, I never (repeat never) ask my opponent, "is there a reason I
shouldn't move here?" I wait until I _know_ the answer, then pop the question.
It's much easier to interpret the body-language response afterward.
>
>
>>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)?
Your imagination is real, so that settles it.
>
>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.]
>
Like determining possible paths of a piece (knight's tour, etc) on a chessboard,
for a while we are all beginners. But after we see everything possible & learn
everything we can, we eventually begin to repeat ourselves.
>
>
>>>>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.
In all seriousness, you are absolutely correct and I've overstepped the bounds.
I suggest we move this discussion to the other forum, until facts emerge which
are worthy of scintillating review in this arena.
>
>
>>>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
>
The analysis is so tedious it becomes daunting to follow. :)
>
>
>>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.
>
Perhaps a brief vacation will refresh your memory. :) :) <= double smiley!!
>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.
I think Dr. Matrix has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
>
>So that totals 5.5, say.
Indeed, and particularly if you say so. Give me a lever long enough and a place
to stand .... where are we going with this? In the end, it seems it doesn't
really matter.
Non-integer degrees of freedom sorts out the
>statisticians.
>
There are those lurking among us, _they_ say.
>
>
>>>>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.
>
Hooked another one!!
>
>>About what?
>
>
>Well, finding ideas of others by peeking directly - like a brute force attack
>effect?
Brute force has already been shown to be insufficient. The problem is thus
intractable. But autoplayer helps, no doubt.
>
>Data-mining, behavior observation are other means less intrusive.
What about obtrusive?
>
>Also auto-testing, which I was sure Dr Donninger could remind one of in a
>follow-up, and this duly happened.
Wonderfully precogniscient! My Jeanne Dixon certificate recently expired. Not
sure I wish to repeat the renewal, not even under exceptional circumstances.
Others, decidedly, are more eminently qualified to render non-biased opinions.
>
>
>
>>Ulterior motives?
>
>
>
>The furtherment of chessical knowledge, of course.
True learning, at its finest, and finely dispensed.
No, Mr. Socrates, we're not fooling around. We're just taking a break from
asking questions, that's all!
>
>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.
Big fish is more like it. Dr. Fishkapov. :)
>
>
>
>>>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....
Many say that Congress cannot and should not attempt to legislate morality, but
that presumes a philosophical bent.
>
>
>>>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.
But nature abhors a vacuum. That's why we use so many transistors in our chips
today.
>
>The real question is, why share these here? Furtherment, naturally.
This naturally leads us directly back to the original question.
>
>
>
>>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.
Self-referential deference and restraint becomes you. The moreso with
returnez-vous, don't you think. As for Uriah, you have it down.
>
>
>
>>>That gives three degrees of freedom.
>>
But who's counting; non-trivially, that is.
>>
>>
>>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.
We could make use of square roots of negative one and get into string theory,
which underlies the theory of everything, some fervently believe. Add a pinch
of quantum computing and chess may yet be solved this century.
>
>Purely hypothetically speaking, of course, as I am a proven idiot.
The proof is in the pudding. Yet all ideas have merit, they say.
You'll be given nearly as much latitude (degrees of freedom, if you will, 5.5 if
you must) as necessary to prove your doctoral hypothesis, but note that your
advisor has limited patients (pun intended) which may lead to your undoing. :)
>
>
>
>>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.
Whose petard is it better to be hoisted by? There's always a chance you will
catch yourself (however miniscule) and tie your own shoelaces before you begin
the trip.
>
>Attention!
>I spoke nothing of "escape".
But I did, Sir. Or are you implying one of those rules about you know what that
I _didn't_ know?
Only of "freedom", which in context ("degrees of"
>is a technical term.
Mechanistic to be sure. But unless I miss my guess, we're trying hard to think
out of the box.
>
>
>
>>>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.
Nor them. :) But there will be tons to speak of, none-the-less.
Once we substitute psychology for programming, it's all over.
>
>
>>>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.
No disagreement here. But as indicated above, perhaps we should be _there_.
>
>
>
>>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.
Undoubtedly why I thought of it. But let's let him speak for himself, shall we.
>
>
>>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.
Time for me to hit the ol' hydra-bed too.
>
>If I were he, I might even be casting a glance at the intricacies of pruning /
>search-extensions .... but, I am not.
Once the cat is treed, the dogs have all day.
>
>Back to Wikipedia so I can learn what a Debugger is. It sounds exciting!
Watch out for false articles and definitions!
>
>
>
>>--Steve =:0)
>
>
>With a full 5.5 degrees of freedom, a better emoticon could not have been
>chosen?
I think a 4-character emoticon is the cat's meow of minimalism. Sort of like
composing haiku poems with 17 syllables (intentionally limiting the canvas size
or number of colors, depending how you look at it), rather than using iambic
pentameter in heroic verse. Or like programming a chess playing program on a
programmable Radio Shack pocket computer or calculator w/ 1KB RAM. Can be loads
of fun, once you get started.
One character emoticons are too limited. Two character emoticons can be readily
misinterpreted as embedded printer commands. Three character emoticons are
easily mistaken for short words such as 'the' or 'umh', 'duh', 'etc'. But four
characters, ahh, that's the ticket! As you know, the medium is the message.
*****************************************
Last post, absent some sort of specific topic revival.
We've raised too many questions to give up (Socrates would be proud!), but
obtained far too few answers to achieve critical discussion mass.
Abiento, Dr. Murak (big fish, or little dwarf, whichever).
P.S.--check out this link (scroll down to the 2005-12-08, 12:59:25 posting by
Spanky Jones):
http://www.wondir.com/wondir/jsp/index.jsp?page=/wondir/signup&method=answerHistory&expert=Swampgrowth&rated=true
This guy could post here, no prob.
--Dr. Boak (doctor of juris-im-prudence)
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.