Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 13:59:10 12/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2002 at 16:51:17, Bruce Moreland wrote: >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. You take two numbers and draw a very general conclusion. Look at other tables and depths, which show a more significant superiority of std R=2 over std R=3. Look at Tables 2 and 6. Vrfd R=3 solved almost the same number of positions as std R=1 !!! Does it leave any room for doubt as for vrfd R=3's superiority over std R=3 ? > >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. > >bruce
This page took 0.07 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.