Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 09:18:10 11/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 26, 2002 at 07:09:07, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >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. > What do you mean by "he did not include Heinz scheme in his tests"? Omid (not Omir!) >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 0.01 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.