Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Author: Bruce Moreland

Date: 00:21:02 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread

On December 17, 2002 at 20:44:45, Omid David Tabibi wrote:

>Heinz' experiments showed that std R=3 is weaker than std R=2 [1]. Bruce's
>Ferret also used std R=2 in WCCC 1999 [2]. So I took the one which is believed
>to be stronger (std R=2), and showed that vrfd R=3 is superior to it.

Yes, but it is possible that normal R=3 is stronger than R=2, and that your
enhancement is weaker than R=3.

You directly claim to be better than R=2, which is acceptable, but you imply
that you are better than R=3.  It is possible that you are better than R=3, but
you have not shown this to be true.

You could have anchored your conclusion much better by demonstrating that your
algorithm is superior to R=3 as well.  It's important to do this, since your
algorithm is related to R=3.

Whether my own program uses R=2 or R=3 has nothing to do with this.  That R=2 is
accepted convention is all the more reason to challenging it by investigating
R=3.  If yours is better than R=3, you are winning on all fronts.  If it is not
better than R=3, your algorithm is very suspect, since it behaves differently
than expected.  Even if it's already *proven* that R=2 is better (which I
doubt), you should take the time to prove it here, because if you prove it again
it's evidence that your program is operating properly.

It's nothing personal.  I would argue these points regardless of who wrote the


This page took 0.02 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.