Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:18:38 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 22:53:37, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >Since it was added on to satisfy the request of the referee and it did not >affect the conclusions substantively it is no big deal to me. It was not in your >prior version and the obvious conclusion is the issue was of no great >consequence to you. It should be viewed in that light, so I think people are >making much ado about nothing here. Still, given the reactions here, it looks >like you should have been more careful. 20/20 hindsight for sure though. > I should add that even with hindsight, I could have done nothing about the node counts. They simply _had_ to be calculated, because of the way the test was run. There was no viable alternative to that... I don't remember enough about the circumstances surrounding finishing the final version of the paper. Because it simply was not "that important" to me at the time. It is even possible that we had to compute the times, as the final draft might have been completed after the loss of everything on my machine. I don't remember that happening, but I also don't remember it not happening. This was one of those "a few minutes here" and "a few minutes there" sort of operation with long delays between revisions due to referee constraints... I do seem to recall getting very close to the point of saying "forget about it, I will publish it somewhere else" because a lot of the changes were trivial, and annoying (colour for color, for example). Fortunately, the way the ICCA was doing papers back then, they would forward me a word document to fix, then I would send it right back. Had I lost anything it wouldn't have lost the paper since they basically had the "original" and kept sending me copies to change this or that...
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.