Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto

Date: 09:53:09 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread

On December 18, 2002 at 12:13:56, Sune Fischer wrote:

>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.

No, that is not the point at all.

The point is (I'm repeating exactly what I said before)
that searching slower to a certain depth but getting more
solutions is no proof that the algorithm is better.

What a node is or is not has nothing whatsoever to do with this.


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.