Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 13:15:52 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread

On December 18, 2002 at 16:09:16, Bruce Moreland wrote:

>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?

Another "Vincentian" question!


This page took 0.02 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.