Paradigm shifts

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

A train of thought I wanted to post in the DS thread, but which is probably worthy of a separate topic.

I see Ippolit in the same way as Fruit. It creates a new gold standard for engine development. If you write a new engine, you should study Ippolit inside out and consider it the reference of how to do things. The same thing happened with Fruit. The result was that any new engine was on average several hundred ELO stronger than was the case before Fruit.

It also created the unfortunate situation that any new engine looks a lot like Fruit. There was a thinning of original development and ideas. (Not sure how to say that properly in English)

I am sure that Ippolit will accomplish the same.

Maybe this is a good thing, and it's a kind of natural selection of ideas. But it's also a fact that any alternative approach will have a formidable baseline to meet before it can be considered. Without the Fruit or Ippolit sources out, there was more breeding ground for new ideas.

Computer go was going in the wrong direction for years, it took some very stubborn people to go the other direction for 10 years before they could meet the gold standard from the wrong direction and leapfrog over it. Now the opposite is happening: if you're not an UCT-like Monte Carlo with patterns playout based program, you're too weak to be relevant. But your approach might be the right one.

The chess paradigm has been to make an as fast as possible alpha-beta searcher with selectivity and heavy leaf pruning, and as much evaluation is practical. This has been remarkably stable over the last, say, 20 years. The extremities to which the approach has been pushed are amazing.

I think there was a paradigm shift when magic bitboards appeared. They are efficient enough that they make any other approach just look wrong. However board representation is not that defining for program strength. (This might be quite subjective)

What are, in your opinion, the odds we will see another paradigm shift? What might be a trigger?

I have some hope big manycore cpus (much more than 100 cores) might cause it. Maybe someday someone makes a workable, strong GPU program. I believe that to accomplish that, a paradigm shift is needed.

Thanks GCP,an interesting reading and fine complex of questions you rised here
Dr.D

[Christopher Conkie]

A train of thought I wanted to post in the DS thread, but which is probably worthy of a separate topic.

I see Ippolit in the same way as Fruit. It creates a new gold standard for engine development. If you write a new engine, you should study Ippolit inside out and consider it the reference of how to do things. The same thing happened with Fruit. The result was that any new engine was on average several hundred ELO stronger than was the case before Fruit.

It also created the unfortunate situation that any new engine looks a lot like Fruit. There was a thinning of original development and ideas. (Not sure how to say that properly in English)

I am sure that Ippolit will accomplish the same.

Maybe this is a good thing, and it's a kind of natural selection of ideas. But it's also a fact that any alternative approach will have a formidable baseline to meet before it can be considered. Without the Fruit or Ippolit sources out, there was more breeding ground for new ideas.

Computer go was going in the wrong direction for years, it took some very stubborn people to go the other direction for 10 years before they could meet the gold standard from the wrong direction and leapfrog over it. Now the opposite is happening: if you're not an UCT-like Monte Carlo with patterns playout based program, you're too weak to be relevant. But your approach might be the right one.

The chess paradigm has been to make an as fast as possible alpha-beta searcher with selectivity and heavy leaf pruning, and as much evaluation is practical. This has been remarkably stable over the last, say, 20 years. The extremities to which the approach has been pushed are amazing.

I think there was a paradigm shift when magic bitboards appeared. They are efficient enough that they make any other approach just look wrong. However board representation is not that defining for program strength. (This might be quite subjective)

What are, in your opinion, the odds we will see another paradigm shift? What might be a trigger?

I have some hope big manycore cpus (much more than 100 cores) might cause it. Maybe someday someone makes a workable, strong GPU program. I believe that to accomplish that, a paradigm shift is needed.

Thanks GCP,an interesting reading and fine complex of questions you rised here
Dr.D

Slippery........yet typical Deeb.

I doubt he wants to be your friend either. If he does, it is not for medical care anyway.......

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

A train of thought I wanted to post in the DS thread, but which is probably worthy of a separate topic.

I see Ippolit in the same way as Fruit. It creates a new gold standard for engine development. If you write a new engine, you should study Ippolit inside out and consider it the reference of how to do things. The same thing happened with Fruit. The result was that any new engine was on average several hundred ELO stronger than was the case before Fruit.

It also created the unfortunate situation that any new engine looks a lot like Fruit. There was a thinning of original development and ideas. (Not sure how to say that properly in English)

I am sure that Ippolit will accomplish the same.

Maybe this is a good thing, and it's a kind of natural selection of ideas. But it's also a fact that any alternative approach will have a formidable baseline to meet before it can be considered. Without the Fruit or Ippolit sources out, there was more breeding ground for new ideas.

Computer go was going in the wrong direction for years, it took some very stubborn people to go the other direction for 10 years before they could meet the gold standard from the wrong direction and leapfrog over it. Now the opposite is happening: if you're not an UCT-like Monte Carlo with patterns playout based program, you're too weak to be relevant. But your approach might be the right one.

The chess paradigm has been to make an as fast as possible alpha-beta searcher with selectivity and heavy leaf pruning, and as much evaluation is practical. This has been remarkably stable over the last, say, 20 years. The extremities to which the approach has been pushed are amazing.

I think there was a paradigm shift when magic bitboards appeared. They are efficient enough that they make any other approach just look wrong. However board representation is not that defining for program strength. (This might be quite subjective)

What are, in your opinion, the odds we will see another paradigm shift? What might be a trigger?

I have some hope big manycore cpus (much more than 100 cores) might cause it. Maybe someday someone makes a workable, strong GPU program. I believe that to accomplish that, a paradigm shift is needed.

How can you think this way? Please consider. You stated that you hesitate to publish Sjeng 4 because of the stealing operation against Rybka. And two hours later you salute the coming of a new gold paradigm with the inventions of Vasik?

Please make no mistake. Vas stood on Fruit in the beginning, but Fabien had left already and when told about Rybka he was amused and had no idea about counteractions at all.

Now we all know that Vas stuff was stolen and that further clone variations have no chance to survive because they dont play the Wch. Nor are played on servers. Sjeng 4 will play, no?

Perhaps you wrote tongue in cheek?

GCP has most probably re-evaluated correctly the current situation and is expressing his own thoughts and visions related to the future of the computer chess world....
Nothing wrong with that I'd say Rolf....
Dr.D

[Nasir_Shaheen]

As a clinical psychologist i have some special offers for the treatment of your Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.
Send me a private message if you are interested.

[Christopher Conkie]

As a clinical psychologist i have some special offers for the treatment of your Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.
Send me a private message if you are interested.

Oh yes please one post poster........!!!!

Yeah right.

Cynical trolls that appear from nowhere will be solved before any clinical problem that I have.

One post......and this is it from you.

You are indeed a very very sad deluded person.

Best if you get switched off now.

Thank you for letting us know about this pseudo account. Waiting with anticipation for you to use another.......



Christopher

[Nimzovik]

Hmmmmmmmmm......Query: once we near chess programming perfection will not all programs look like each other in terms of code due to the fact there may be only one solution (other than pure brute force) to chess? Just a thought ...no doubt flawed.

[Christopher Conkie]

Hmmmmmmmmm......Query: once we near chess programming perfection will not all programs look like each other in terms of code due to the fact there may be only one solution (other than pure brute force) to chess? Just a thought ...no doubt flawed.

No, its not flawed logic IMO.

It is a sensible post and point to make. As the solution to chess (gets closer although it mat never approach completion) it is logical that all programs wil start to look the same (but that is far from now).

The thing is, we are not even close. From time to time things help like Fruit for example. Someone absorbs it and uses it to better it. Right now we have learned one thing....from Fruit (note not Rybka and Ippolit).

We have learned that it may be better to concentrate on the main line very early in chess. That is, to make a decision about that then stick to it, so that we might concentrate all effort of search (and thereby startling depth reaching) on that.

The question is......what if you choose the wrong line as your main line?

There are so many things remaining to be solved in chess, that is why it is so popular as a strategic game.

Christopher

[DomLeste]

What we need is all chess programs the size of Thinker under 70kb

Have a world championship with programs under 65kilobyte

Chess programmers really need a new challenge. Like Formula 1 where theirs a set of rules which helps level the playing field of competition and innovation. Like Formula 1 change the rules accordingly every few years to spice things up.

[Christopher Conkie]

What we need is all chess programs the size of Thinker under 70kb

True, in one way of thinking. Simple things can be best sometimes. The old saying goes "Keep it simple stupid" or the "KISS off".

Have a world championship with programs under 65kilobyte

I think if there were, H.G. Muller has that one tied up already, but I could be wrong.

Chess programmers really need a new challenge. Like Formula 1 where theirs a set of rules which helps level the playing field of competition and innovation. Like Formula 1 change the rules accordingly every few years to spice things up.

Yes and no IMO. There are always new challenges, but this is not about levelling the playing field,

It is about how you go about levelling the playing field.

Leave it like this and many who cannot program to that extent will suddenly appear out of the floorboards. To know this you only have to watch.

For example......

Alex Lobanov makes his first post here......

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 68&t=30583

This is the author of ........

http://www.sdchess.ru/Alchess.htm

On the chess scale it is not wonderful but it is none the less OK and welcome.

Now you need to know that this is the guy who is fixing Ippolit.

He cannot make a chess engine like that. But he can fix something else.

Even in Russia it seems there are dense people.

Now you also need to know that EVERY update to Ippolit or Robbolito comes from him AND that is what appears on the Ippolit website.........

AliChess.......no baba........3000 elo here I come........

Bankuss (to call him by his special name in the hacker/cracker forum)? More like fool us not Bankuss........ I won't be banking on him much. If you are watching Bankuss.....here's Chuckie......

It depends if you watch, and you must watch everything believe me, you must. I know what I see......and we (it is not always me) look all the time.

The most plausible explanation can be that "they" are only after what THEY CANNOT DO THEMSELVES (sorry for shouting).

See that post you wrote above?

That deserves a lot of respect and a different thread.

I'm sorry if I cannot give you all answers to everything but I know a spade is spade.

Regards

Christopher

[Alex Lobanov]

Christopher Conkie
you would write a fairy tale!
alchess - my only test engine, which I have not engaged.
all I did - adapted robbolito on windows and compile on x64. ALL !

no need to invent a lie about me.
is your imagination, no more.