Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 03:42:39 11/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 22, 2002 at 06:31:40, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>On November 22, 2002 at 06:11:54, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>
>>You understand nothing out of research, and this is demonstrated by your call
>>for comparing search times.
>>
>>Did Aske Plaat compare search times? Did Ernst Heinz compare search times in >his excellent "Adaptive null-move pruning" article?
>
>(Not sure about Plaat, been a while)
>
>You got that right, they were flawed in the same regard.
>
>>No, only Vincent who doesn't know anything out of science, calls for such an
>>erroneous comparison.
>
>Please, just because the people before you did it doesn't make it good.
>
Comparing search times has the following problems:
1. It is not reproducible:
- If you manage to speed up your program (without algorithmic change),
the results will be different.
- If you move to another platform, the results will be different.
- Even on the same very hardware with the same very program, you will
not get the exact results of the previous test.
2. It is not generic:
- dependant on your program's structure
- dependant on your program's speed
- dependant on your hardware
3. It is not accurate:
I have conducted tests on thousands of positions during the past several
months. Sometimes the computer was busier, sometimes it crashed and I had
to restart it (Windows!), etc.
>--
>GCP
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.