Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: significant math

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 13:42:21 11/19/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 19, 2002 at 16:33:40, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

>On November 19, 2002 at 16:31:33, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>On November 19, 2002 at 16:24:36, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>>>On November 19, 2002 at 16:22:14, Russell Reagan wrote:
>>>>You can't prove either to be clearly better than the other, but you can give >evidence that they are comparable in terms of performance.
>>>You haven't done that. You've shown that they reach similar NPS.
>>>NPS =/= performance
>>ANd they play similarly when using equal hardware.  Is _that_ also ignorable???
>Yes, very easily.
>It might be that Yace is actually a lot faster internally but has
>more bugs in the evaluation, or that it's evaluation isn't as well
>tuned, or that the search isn't as good.
>Maybe Crafty is actually a lot faster but (insert same argument here).
>...and the net result is that even though there are big speed differences
>the programs play similarly.

in other words, no evidence is acceptable?

This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.