Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:37:03 09/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2002 at 22:27:22, Charles Roberson wrote: > > I agree with Bob. I have some reservations on the paper but I found it > interesting and need to "ponder" it more. > > Here is a key point on published research. > > Even if they do waste tons of time, publishing the results allows the > rest of us not to waste the same tons of time!!!!!! > > Charles If results are published as they were, then the experienced researcher definitely only needs to waste his time to just read what they did, in order to get an idea what they should not try to experiment with :) IMHO it is obvious that that majority of researching is not going to find great new alternatives, but instead has to conclude that doing it in a way X has to suck. That the majority of researchers DO present their stuff as being very good i can understand from both their viewpoint as well as from scientific viewpoint (in science it seems to be the habit to never present something negative). though it is objectively not correct, at least the experienced researcher can read their data then and conclude himself things.
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.