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 upon. 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. > >bruce
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.