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 paper. bruce
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.