Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 09:26:58 11/26/02

Go up one level in this thread


On November 26, 2002 at 12:18:10, Omid David Tabibi wrote:

>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"?
>

Oh, if you mean adaptive null-move pruning, I didn't consider it since its
tactical strength is not more than standard R=2.

O/w, while I still reject fixed time and time to solution comparisons, I will
seriously consider node to solution in the next papers.

>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 0.11 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.