Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Author: Bruce Moreland

Date: 13:09:16 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread

On December 18, 2002 at 15:58:09, Omid David Tabibi wrote:

>No, I claimed that for longer time controls the superiority of std R=2 over std
>R=3 is not that significant. But I never said that std R=3 is better than std
>R=2 under any time control.

Your paper is on the verge of showing that R=3 is better than R=2.  Less than
half the time, almost identical result, how could it be worse?


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.