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.