Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 14:26:57 12/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2002 at 17:25:21, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On December 18, 2002 at 17:02:52, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>On December 18, 2002 at 16:59:49, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>I can't see how someone can come to such a conclusion. (Are we talking about the >>same article?!) > >Yes, again: > >You show in table 5 that you solve 849 problems through ply 10, with R=3, and >850 with R=2, also through ply 10. > >You show in table 4 that you get through ply 10 in 42% of the time with R=3. > >So you show two things: > >1) Number of solution is almost identical. >2) R=3 is 2.4 times faster to finish. > >If you give me two versions that produce almost exactly the same solution set, >and one of them is 2.4 times faster than the other one, it's very difficult to >avoid the conclusion that the faster one is better. > >Tables 1 and 2 show almost the same thing. One solution worse, 2.2x faster. > >If you let me carefully specify a test for you to run, which makes use of >conclusions from this data, I believe I can get your program to demonstrate that >R=3 is significantly better than R=2. > >bruce http://talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?271520
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.