Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Author: Tony Werten

Date: 10:14:43 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread

On December 18, 2002 at 11:15:01, Omid David Tabibi wrote:

>Of course. If you try to implement it on  XiniX, or GCP on Sjeng, or Uri on
>Movei, then you certainly care about fixed time. But if I want to present the
>data in a generic manner, I have to persent them in the most hardware/software
>independant way I can.
>I further don't understand why all the fire is directed at me;

It isn't.

>fixed depth
>comparisons are the common accepted comparison methods, which are completely
>hardware independant.
>For the most recent examples take a look at Heinz and Plaat's numerous articles,
>all of which were conducted in fixed depth.

I think it has more to do with the same person insisting on fixed depth test
results ? If so then it's not strange that an outdated test setup is choosen.


>>>1) The amount of time taken to process a leaf node may very well be less than
>>>the amount of time taken to process an interior node (not including its
>>>children, of course).  So if the tree shape changes, it is possible that it
>>>could take longer to search a smaller tree.  Unless that is ruled out, all that
>>>has been proven is that VR=3 works in fewer nodes.  That is pretty interesting,
>>>but I think it makes a stronger case if *time* is used as well, so we will know
>>>that there is at least one real case where this technique makes the program
>>>2) The amount of nodes traversed to get through ply 10, with R=3, is about 60%
>>>of the number taken to get through ply 10 with VR=3.  It can be assumed (perhaps
>>>wrongly, due to my previous point) that this search takes 60% as long.  The
>>>number of solutions found by R=3 is fewer than with VR=3, granted.  But what is
>>>the R=3 version doing while the other version is trying to finish up ply 10?  It
>>>is going on to ply 11.  How many solutions has it found in ply 11 before VR=3
>>>has finished ply 10?  In this case, 65 is sufficiently less than 71 that the
>>>answer is probably less then 71.  But maybe not!
>>>It seems likely that VR=3 is tactically faster than R=3, but I cannot know for
>>>sure, since the results have not been reported!  We do not know if VR=3 is
>>>tactically *faster* than R=3.  Isn't that an important point, since all of us
>>>who read this article are wondering if we can stick this in our own programs and
>>>obtain benefit?
>>>I have seen people report results like this forever.  I wish that they would use
>>>a the more sensible method of reporting number of solutions found correct in a
>>>certain amount of *time*, since that is the true measure of tactical speed.
>>>Nothing personal, Omid.
>>>I'm trying to verify your results by using ECM with Gerbil.  First I have to get
>>>good numbers for R=2 and R=3.
>>>By the way, if anyone wants to take Gerbil and use it as a second example when
>>>writing articles like this, I'm all for it.  It's simple so it should be pretty
>>>easy to modify.

This page took 0.18 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.