Computer Chess Club Archives




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

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*

This page took 0.07 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.