Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Verified Null-Move Pruning, ICGA 25(3)

Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto

Date: 04:09:07 11/26/02

Go up one level in this thread


On November 25, 2002 at 22:32:28, Dave Gomboc wrote:

>>No. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it - it's not really fair
>>to Omir as he does publish his stuff.
>
>In that case, I'll take it as a courtesy if you don't criticize any work I
>happen to publish because it uses node counts instead of wall clock timings.

I don't think it's fair to say 'what you published is crap, I have
something much better but I'm not telling you what and I'm not going
to publish it or post test results from it'.

I think it's fair to say 'what you published is crap because you did
not test it correctly and you compared only to inferior methods whereas
better methods were already known and published'

I don't think it's fair to criticise Omir because his scheme does
not work in my engine. I think it's fair to criticise him because
he did not include Heinz scheme in his tests.

Even though he did not test nodes or time to solution and I think
it's necessary to do so, I'm not going to criticise him for not doing
so, although I'll explain why I think it's needed. Omir is young and
to get published it is easier to do as has been done before you because
it will get you accepted more easily.

But please consider that many breakthroughs were made because people
_didn't_ do that.

I'll applaud the first one to publish an academic paper to use
nodes (if NPS is proven to be unaffected by the change) or time to
solution as the primary measure in the test results.

If that's you, then, well

*clap* *clap* *clap* *clap*

--
GCP



This page took 0.15 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.