Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 13:26:36 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread


On December 18, 2002 at 16:17:31, Bruce Moreland wrote:

>On December 18, 2002 at 15:55:58, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>All of this "science" relies on similarities between chess programs whose
>sources in many cases are not even made public.  You can't assume that anything
>will produce the same results in your program that it does in other programs.
>
>If we were all working on the same program, in order to find the *one* change
>that makes it better, of course what you are saying is true.
>
>We have a bunch of blind men sharing tips with each other about how to avoid
>tripping over furniture in their own houses.  Each house has a similar
>floorplan, but is not identical.  Sometimes one blind man will say to the
>others, "If I take three steps into my bedroom, I will trip over the bed."
>
>The other blind men have to derive what they can from this, but they can't
>assume that if they take two steps into their bedroom that they won't trip over
>their bed, or if they take three steps that they will.  The bed might be in a
>different spot.
>
>The only way to do "real" science here is to figure out *why* R=3 cannot beat
>R=2, *ever*, and write a paper on *that*.  But this kind of root cause thing is
>probably beyond all of us.
>
>Until someone does that, everyone has to do their own test, because to do
>otherwise is to stagnate.
>

Of course I have done my own tests, which confirmed std R=2's superiority over
std R=3. But I didn't publish them because they didn't indicate anything new,
just confirmed the previous published results.


>bruce



This page took 0.06 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.