Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto

Date: 08:38:41 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread

On December 18, 2002 at 07:47:15, Sune Fischer wrote:

>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.

I don't see how this affects Bruce's point.

His point is that searching slower to a certain depth but getting more
solutions is no proof that the algorithm is better.

Are you arguing this is wrong?


This page took 0.01 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.