Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 13:59:49 12/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2002 at 16:26:36, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >Of course I have done my own tests, which confirmed std R=2's superiority over >std R=3. But I didn't publish them because they didn't indicate anything new, >just confirmed the previous published results. You published data that shows that R=3 is better than R=2. You proved that R=3 will solve essentially the same number of problems in 42% of the time. You didn't make this conclusion, but it is in the data. If it is in the data, but the conclusion is wrong, then something is wrong with the data. If something is wrong with the data, then it can't be used to prove anything about VR=3, either. bruce
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.