Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: I'm being too harsh, but still

Author: Bruce Moreland

Date: 12:19:54 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread

On December 18, 2002 at 11:22:48, Omid David Tabibi wrote:

>>I have not tested Omid's variant.
>There are two types of people: those who when see an idea, implement it, and
>only then criticize it; and those who criticize first and only then try it. I
>previously thought that only Vincent is in the latter group...

This is completely unfair, and you are turning this into something personal.

I take issue with some of the elements of your paper, and perhaps with the
larger issue of how people do testing in computer chess academic papers.  That
is all.

If your intent was to show that VR=3 is better than R=2, in your own program,
you have shown that, but VR=3 is a variant of R=3, and you needed to investigate
the relationship between R=3 as well as between R=2 and VR=3.

You considered it axiomatic that R=2 is better than R=3, but your own data
strongly implies that R=3 is better than R=2.

None of this has anything to do with whether or not your idea is good.  Your
contention is that I should have to prove that your algorithm is bad before I
criticize your article.  That is not how things work.  I could stipulate that
your algorithm is good, and this would not affect the substance of my criticism.
 If you write a paper, the burden of proof is on *you* to show that your
algorithm is good.  This is true whether or not your algorithm is actually good.

Meaning, that just because your algorithm is good does not exempt you from
having to prove it, and just because someone else comes along later and proves
it doesn't mean that your original paper was done properly.


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.