Author: Ernst A. Heinz
Date: 16:14:10 05/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
>>>Sounds to me like you should test this for the same reason >>>that you did the "X <=> X+1" test. >> >>Sounds to me that you still do not accept or understand the >>qualitative difference between the cases ... >> >>=Ernst= > >I'm not even suggesting that the cases are remotely similar. > >I'm simply continuing the point of this thread, namely, you noticed that as >depth increases, the number of draws increases and the number of wins decreases. >Your conclusion is that this behavior is due to unequal depths. But wouldn't it >be interesting if the behavior also occurred with equal depths? > >Here's the problem in my mind: >You didn't believe that "X <=> X+1" would vary with depth, so you did an >experiment and wrote a paper. >You don't believe that "X <=> X" varies with depth, so you are dimissing the >possibility with curt remarks and implications that I don't understand the >problem. Tom: Before going into your usual and predictable mode of "fight the academic paper writers", I urge you to read carefully what I wrote. My statement was that you _either_ do not accept _or_ do not understand the qualitative difference. Hence, your aggressive rhetoric is quite inappropriate IMO. Obviously, you do not accept it -- fine with me, case closed. Bruce's placebo example and my paragraph "Engine Calibration" explain why most people would deem it hardly worthwhile the effort to play all "X <=> X" control matches. If you think that these missing matches put a severe dent into my interpretation of the experimental results, so be it. I can certainly live with it and happily agree to disagree with you on this point. =Ernst=
This page took 0.01 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.