Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 12:55:58 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread

On December 18, 2002 at 15:19:54, Bruce Moreland wrote:

>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.

Std R=2 is shown to be stronger than std R=3 (see Heinz '99). I don't have to
prove it again. This is how scientific research is conducted. If you disagree
with Heinz' paper, then publish your counterclaims; but as long as you haven't,
his work can be considered accurate, and a source for future work to be based

Taking your line of thought, one can continue the criticism, saying why Gamma,
Marginal Forward Pruning, or Razoring were not compared to Null-Move Pruning.

This is the basic of scientific research, you don't have to re-prove something
others have already proved. Anyone who has ever engaged in scientific research,
should know that.

>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 0.03 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.