Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 14:02:52 12/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2002 at 16:59:49, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On December 18, 2002 at 16:26:36, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>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. > >You published data that shows that R=3 is better than R=2. I can't see how someone can come to such a conclusion. (Are we talking about the same article?!) >You proved that R=3 >will solve essentially the same number of problems in 42% of the time. You >didn't make this conclusion, but it is in the data. > >If it is in the data, but the conclusion is wrong, then something is wrong with >the data. If something is wrong with the data, then it can't be used to prove >anything about VR=3, either. > >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.