Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:49:14 12/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2002 at 15:43:56, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On December 18, 2002 at 14:31:21, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On December 18, 2002 at 11:29:37, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>On December 18, 2002 at 11:23:38, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On December 18, 2002 at 11:15:01, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>> >>>>>I further don't understand why all the fire is directed at me; 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 would think that the best research is the one that improves upon >>>>the mistakes of previous ones. >>>> >>> >>>I am yet to be convinced that the methodology practiced by Hyatt, Schaeffer, >>>Marsland, Buro, Plaat, Heinz, and others, is mistake. >> >>I have complaint with how this is applied, sometimes. >> >>One type of test involves making the tree smaller, period, while doing the same >>kinds of work. If Schaeffer is going to test the history heuristic, that's >>great -- if the tree is smaller, it's a win, because if you can consistently do >>the *same* stuff in fewer nodes, that's always good. >> >>The only possible criticism I can have of something like this is if it doesn't >>use enough test positions. >> >>If you are trying to prove that something sees more, what does seeing more mean? >> You can blow the tree size up by extending everywhere, and you will see more in >>a given depth. But depth is not the proper measure, since a larger tree size >>will also take more time to search. >> >>If you want to "improve" a chess program in this manner, just incorporate a >>two-ply search into your eval function. You'll find stuff two plies sooner. >> >>The only reason that your experiment shows that VR=3 is better than R=2 is that >>the solution set was bigger *and* the node counts were smaller. You can >>*assume* from that that the times are also reduced. >> >>You can't make these assumptions about R=3 as compared with VR=3. >>And for that >>matter, you can't make them about R=3 as compared with R=2, given the data you >>present. >> >>Your data strongly implies that R=3 is better than R=2. That is disturbing, > > >>since your paper regards the superiority of R=2 over R=3 as axiomatic. > >I didn't intend to reinvent the cycle. It has already been shown elsewhere that >std R=2 is superior to std R=3. if std R=2 is superior to std R=3 for program X when VR=3 is superior to std R=2 for program Y then it does not prove superiority of VR=3 to std R=3 I believe that R=2 is not superior to R=3 for Genesis and I remember that even before the article you claimed that R=3 is better than R=2 for genesis at long time control. Uri
This page took 0.11 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.