Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: I'm being too harsh, but still

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.

This page took 0.02 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.