Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Proving something is better

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

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.


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.