Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Proving something is better

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.

This page took 0.05 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.