Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Author: Sune Fischer

Date: 09:13:56 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread

On December 18, 2002 at 11:38:41, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

>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?

Yes I am.
Bruce is saying that a node is a node.
This is not the case if you pile a bunch of evaluation on some nodes and not on
others, obviously those heavy nodes are going to a better job than the
"lightweight" nodes.

In _this_ case you can't compare nodes.

A node is meant to be unit of search, change the unit and you change the


This page took 0.06 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.