Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto

Date: 08:20:58 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread

On December 18, 2002 at 11:07:49, Omid David Tabibi wrote:

>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.

Which is why you investigated Heinz's adaptive nullmove.

Oh, wait...

>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.

'Everything you know is wrong'

Whether R=2 or R=3 is better depends very much on the search below
that nullmove. For a Crafty-style program (which Genesis appears to
be), R=2 is going to be superior over R=3. But you can't claim that
is a general truth.


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.