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 0.01 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.