Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 08:07:49 12/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2002 at 03:21:02, Bruce Moreland wrote: >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 Have you ever conducted any research? If so, you would have known that a researcher doesn't examine everything since the creation of earth, he takes something which is known to be better and tries to improve it. I didn't think that someone will seriously claim that std R=3 is better than std R=3; but now, I'd be glad to write another paper comparing those two, and also mentioning fixed time comparisons if people find it interesting. Because although not appearing the article, I have conducted tens of other types of experiments (including fixed time) and I _know_ that vrfd R=2 is clearly superior to std R=3. Omid.
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.