Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Author: Bruce Moreland

Date: 13:02:38 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread


On December 18, 2002 at 11:07:49, Omid David Tabibi wrote:

>Have you ever conducted any research? If so, you would have known that a
>researcher doesn't examine everything since the creation of earth, he takes
>something which is known to be better and tries to improve it.

If I were testing the properties of a specific isotope of a specific element, I
would assume that previous research is valid, because the test material is
invariant.

If I were testing something whose properties were variant, I would have to
repeat some previous research.

If you understand a certain type of wood, and are skilled at doing fine
carpentry with this kind of wood, you may not be able to use the same methods on
a different type of wood, because that wood may have different properties.

The blind assumption that all wood is the same would lead you to produce some
crusty looking furniture.

You can't make use of much previous research in the computer chess field.  A lot
of it was conducted on slow hardware, a lot was conducted before null-move
happened, etc.

So if someone says that R=2 is better than R=3, there is *no way* that I am
going to believe this until I run it myself.

There are plenty of techniques that haven't been repeatable.  I believe that
people have had a hard time repeating MTD(f).  There were also problems
repeating Donninger's "deep search" aspect of his original null-move article.
I'm sure that there are others.

Most of that research is just ideas about stuff to try to repeat.

>I didn't think that someone will seriously claim that std R=3 is better than std
>R=3; but now, I'd be glad to write another paper comparing those two, and also

I'm assuming you mean R=2 in the second line.  Your own data implies this.  I
think it behooves you to investigate it.

I believe that if you run R=3 for the amount of time that it takes you to get to
depth=10 with R=2, *you* will find that you get more answers on both the WCS
suite and the Neishtadt suite.

If you don't, I would have serious questions as to why not.  You are within one
solution already.  How could you expect that you won't get at least two more
solutions if you more than double the time?

bruce

>mentioning fixed time comparisons if people find it interesting. Because
>although not appearing the article, I have conducted tens of other types of
>experiments (including fixed time) and I _know_ that vrfd R=2 is clearly
>superior to std R=3.



This page took 0.05 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.