Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 14:29:42 11/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2002 at 17:21:53, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On November 21, 2002 at 17:10:14, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On November 21, 2002 at 17:07:06, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>Time to solution is not a common method in academic computer chess papers. It >is not generic enough, and is too program dependant to be scientifically >>>acceptable. >>> >>>Apart from a few exceptions, I have seen no other publication which discusses >>>time to solution. >> >>Yes, which is why nearly everything published in the ICCA journal >>is completely worthless. > >You call ICGA worthless? Then you have to see the prestigious "Artificial >Intelligence" journal. Pure theory, theory, impractical theory... > >The journal's name "AI" apparently stands for "Anything Impractical"... :-) > Impractical; except for the great articles from U of Alberta's GAMES group (e.g. Schaeffer). > >>I can't understand the stupitidy in blindly >>following this just because everyone else did. >> >>As for the few exceptions, they are quite notable ones. The DTS >>paper from Robert was one of them. It's also one of the very few >>usefull articles. >> >>-- >>GCP
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.