Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 04:51:09 11/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 22, 2002 at 07:30:13, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On November 22, 2002 at 07:18:48, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>Because we were discussing the performance on your specific program. But if we >>wanted to draw a wider conclusion regarding the algorithm, we had to know all >>those details. > >Yes. > >>Besides, you might agree that the results you posted with fixed time, while >>being practical for testing your program, are not general enough to be >>publishable. > >Howso? At best it can provide evidence that the method is better for my >program. The same is true for you. I already posted evidence that despite >your 'more general' results it does not work for my program. You haven't tried enough yet :-) I'm sure that after enough tuning, it will work well on your program, and starting from a certain depth will dominate all other algorithms on every program. >I don't see >the logic in cosidering one publishable and the other not. > >To make it really interesting, it would have been interesting to also >implement it in Crafy (or another free program) and verify the results >there. > >-- >GCP
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.