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 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.