Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 15:21:28 12/17/02

Go up one level in this thread

On December 17, 2002 at 18:11:20, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>On December 17, 2002 at 17:30:36, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>if you go back in time a bit you see that i had
>major problems with Omids article and posted it here.
>there is more than just the problems you see there.
>also look at his homepage and get the positions he tested
>and then look to his node counts. for a mate in 2 position
>where i need like a couple of hundreds of nodes to get to 10 ply
>he needs 10 million nodes. then R=3 reduces that more.
>also his implementation is buggy of course. it doesn't take into
>account problems with transpositions. a classical beginners problem.
>But most important is that verification search is not something new
>it is a buggy implementation of something already described years ago
>with only 'novelty' that omid turns off nullmove *completely*
>after he finds a nullmove failure.

No he does not.
There is no point in the tree that he turns off nullmove completely.

>All with all a very sad article. The only good thing about it is
>the quantity of tests done.
>The test methods and the implementation and the conclusions are
>grammar school level.
>I do not know who proofread it, but it gotta be idiots or people who
>didn't care at all.
>Amazingly Bob defended Omid here and said nothing was wrong with
>the article.

Bob also found that verification search is good for crafty based on his post.
Bob is not the onlyone who defended Omid.

I also defend him and you are the only poster who attacks him(even posters who
said that it did not work for them did not say that it is very bad).
Most of what you say is not correct.


This page took 0.03 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.