Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Author: Bruce Moreland

Date: 13:51:17 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread

On December 18, 2002 at 16:15:52, Omid David Tabibi wrote:

>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!

I propose a valid criticism, and you get defensive, ignore my criticism, and
make a personal remark.  This is not useful.

Version A solves 850 positions at an average of X seconds per position.  Version
B solves 849 positions at an average of 0.42X seconds per position.

I would suggest that version B seems outright superior.  At very least, version
B deserves investigation.  Certainly, version B cannot be condemned without
further research, just because others have already "proven" that it is bad.

This is the exact picture that your own data paints.

I am trying to get you to look at your own data and admit that the orthodox
conclusion that you want your data to support, may not be the only conclusion
that your data supports.


This page took 0.03 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.