Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Author: Sune Fischer

Date: 04:47:15 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread

On December 17, 2002 at 19:42:10, Bruce Moreland wrote:

>We have his new version, and it gets to the same depth more slowly, and finds
>more answers, than R=3.  This proves nothing.  I could make a program where the
>eval function incorporates a 2-ply search.  It would take longer to search 9
>plies, but it would get a lot more right.  This is the same result that Omid
>got.  Did he just prove that my hypothetical program is better?  Of course not.
>If you accept his method as proof, he did prove that VR=3 is better than R=2, I
>point out.  But he should have tackled R=3, too, if he is going to present that

If you want to compare _search_ algorithms, you shouldn't go and change the
evaluation or completely redefine the word "node" from one program to the next.

The whole assumption here is that they are identical, except for changes in the
search parameters.


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.