Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 14:26:57 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread


On December 18, 2002 at 17:25:21, Bruce Moreland wrote:

>On December 18, 2002 at 17:02:52, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>
>>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?!)
>
>Yes, again:
>
>You show in table 5 that you solve 849 problems through ply 10, with R=3, and
>850 with R=2, also through ply 10.
>
>You show in table 4 that you get through ply 10 in 42% of the time with R=3.
>
>So you show two things:
>
>1) Number of solution is almost identical.
>2) R=3 is 2.4 times faster to finish.
>
>If you give me two versions that produce almost exactly the same solution set,
>and one of them is 2.4 times faster than the other one, it's very difficult to
>avoid the conclusion that the faster one is better.
>
>Tables 1 and 2 show almost the same thing.  One solution worse, 2.2x faster.
>
>If you let me carefully specify a test for you to run, which makes use of
>conclusions from this data, I believe I can get your program to demonstrate that
>R=3 is significantly better than R=2.
>
>bruce

http://talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?271520



This page took 0.04 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.