Author: Bruce Moreland

Date: 01:32:17 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread

On December 18, 2002 at 03:53:48, Dave Gomboc wrote: >My copy of the issue is at home, but my recollection is that he claimed >superiority over R=2, but did not claim superiority over R=3. (Or if he did, >then this was based on experiments by others [notably Heinz] who already >demonstrated the superiority of R=2 over R=3. I agree that the data presented >does not justify that claim without additional information.) I thought about this a little more. The paper doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense if you don't assume that R=2 is better that R=3. The paper considers it to be axiomatic. If you assume that it's unknown if R=2 is better than R=3, then it seems most obvious that you'd first have to compare the variant with R=3, or prove that R=3 is inferior to R=2, and then prove that R=2 is more inferior to the variant. If you prove that a horse painted yellow runs faster than a camel, you haven't made the case for painting the horse yellow unless you can show that a horse is normally slower than a camel. If a variant of R=3 is inferior to R=3, there is not much point to it, so the falsity of that statement needs to be established. bruce

- Re: Everything you know is wrong
**José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba***04:12:07 12/18/02*

This page took 0.04 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.