Author: A. Steen
Date: 06:54:04 12/30/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2005 at 09:43:05, Thorsten Czub wrote: >When should we expect a major breakthrough in science ? >When will a lone developer 'step through the looking-glass' ? >Who will this developer be ? > >The answer to the above two questions is of course whenever the old, classical >programmers say 'we've reached perfection, there is no way to improve'; when the >old paradigm says 'there is only one way'; when all the developers produce >roughly equal results. > > >I call this type of search Artificial Stupidity (AS). Since all the current >programs operate in this way, ELO grading lists and inter-program tournaments >are no more than a reflection of the partially-sighted playing the blind, whose >AS algorithm is most efficient, but it is not >chess. > > >To play chess without knowledge of chess is not to play chess, strong players >will always beat such programs with superior knowledge. >The classical program play chess as if it were the First World War in the >trenches, no concept of mobility, no concept of cooperation of forces, no >concept of knocking the enemy off balance with well timed blows; just material >and pawn structure - if it plays boring chess, that's why - if it blunders >against club players, that's why. It understands nothing of consequence. > >The philosophers of classical search claim that search finds everything and >knows everything - > >The 'looking-glass' program can calculate the attack strength FROM ITS >EVALUATION FUNCTION. So, without actually finding mate or material win, the >looking-glass program has the dynamic knowledge of the attack. > >The looking-glass program has dynamic knowledge from its evaluation function. >The looking-glass program is a planner, the classical program is a finder. The >looking-glass program is pro-active, it makes plans to exploit the position; the >classical program is re-active, it waits for a mistake by its opponent and then >exploits it. > >Who will be the developer ? >=========================== >To answer our third question - 'who will be the developer ?', it is necessary >to look at the personality of the classical programmers and their hangers-on. >These programmers are characterised by a failure to show their emotions (do >they ever smile), fear (just watch them operating at tournaments), refusal to >discuss how their programs work (just try talking to them) , aversion to taking >risks. It has always surprised me that the 'top' programmers are not good chess >players. The hangers-on only make a little money, they jealously support their >chosen proteges, and viciously attack their opponents. The hangers-on know >little, pretend to know much and are governed by fear and greed. >Overall the impression is of a static, non-risk taking, hostile, World War I >environment. The new paradigm will come from an unexpected quarter. From a >developer with extrovert personality, accustomed to taking risks, a developer >with chess knowledge, probably someone unpopular with the classical paradigm >supporters, certainly unpopular >with the hangers-on and computer chess entourage. This developer will have been >and certainly will be furiously attacked by the classicists. > >The new paradigm differs from the classical by one simple conceptual switch. >The classical paradigm makes fast and simple evaluation at each node and >generates intelligence from the search tree. The classical programmer looks for >ways to make his search more efficient and his evaluation function simpler and >faster. The 'looking-glass' paradigm makes slow and complex evaluations at each >node and prefers to prune the search tree by use of this evaluation function. In >this model search is to be avoided >unless absolutely necessary. Thus the search tree is not central to the new >paradigm, rather the search tree is used to find details overlooked, or mistakes >made, by the evaluation function. The 'looking-glass' paradigm has the >components of human thought - detailed, intuitive evaluation, with search >carried out to ensure that the program is not >falling into any traps. I estimate that the difference in nodes per second >between and extreme classical program and a 'looking-glass' program will be of >the order of 20-30 times, sufficient to give the classical program an extra two >plies of search (albeit with reduced knowledge at the nodes). Thus the increased >knowledge of the 'looking-glass' program has to compensate for this apparently >reduced search depth. The looking-glass strategy necessitates much programming >effort, and requires the programmer to have an exceptionally good knowledge of >chess strategy and tactics. When such a program is first >being developed it will constantly be outplayed by classical programs, for >classical programs see everything within their horizon and the newly developing >'looking-glass' program cannot yet hope to know sufficient tactical and >positional themes to compete, but our experience shows that once breakthrough (a >knowledge o f sufficient chess themes to compensate for reduced search depth) >occurs the looking-glass program begins to >consistently outplay the classical programs. Further advantages emerge from the >high level of chess knowledge in the evaluation function - better move selection >and move sorting, resulting in more efficient search - more possibilities of >accurate forward pruning, resulting in smaller search trees. With increases in >tree size (from faster hardware), these advantages are geometric. > >The classicists maintain the computer chess dichotomy of B-search (which I >understand means pruning occurs at all levels of the tree) or A-B Search (which >apparently means that part of the search is full width). >The looking-glass programmer condemns this dichotomy as meaningless. >The new paradigm makes the issue clear: chess programs either have simple >evaluation and generate intelligence through search, or have complex evaluations >and use limited search as a backup to cover oversights and mistakes. All chess >programs prune in one way or another, but looking-glass programs, with complex >evaluation, are able to prune more. > >Of course, the issue is not so black and white. There is a grey scale between >the extreme looking-glass (human play style) and extreme classical style. At the >classical end of the scale the B or A-B dichotomy tries to position the program >on the scale, but basically classicists believe in search. At the looking-glass >end of the scale the issue is how much does the evaluation function allow us to >prune or extend - how many risks can we take based on our evaluation function ? >Basically looking-glass programmers believe in evaluation. > >Von Manstein >============ >If, as is said, chess is war, then there must be lessons to be learnt from >military history. I have already alluded to the static, boring First World War >style of the classical programs (and their programmers !). The opposite style >can be found in several histories, Rommel in North Africa, Alexander the Great >against Darius, Von Manstein in Russia. Alexander, despite being outnumbered >many times, concentrated the powerful mobile part of his army, attacked the >stronger Persians, cut through and went straight for Darius himself. The bulk of >Darius's army was not engaged, but the battle was decisively won - a classic >king attack. Von Manstein (and Rommel) both understood that the power of the >outnumbered German army lay in superior staff work, concentration of forces, >striking blows to knock the enemy off balance. The looking-glass chess program >must contain knowledge of these dynamic elements; and it is only the >looking-glass program that has the knowledge and evaluation time available to >calculate such ephemerals. > >Tal function >============ >To find a chess player who understood the king attack, the concentration of >forces, the striking of blows to unbalance the opponent, one need look no >further than Michael Tal, Russian grandmaster, and player of such romantic and >swashbuckling style that his games continue to thrill all lovers of chess. Johannes 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." All the other material too could sound terribly familiar, couldn't it? Personally, I rate von Kleist and von Kluge rather higher than Manstein, and Rommel was over-rated. I would not have used "ephemerals" instead of "ephemera". And a dozen other things. Please help to keep this discussion to the subject of "Computer Chess". Much of the above-quoted rambling did not.
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.