Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Author: Bruce Moreland

Date: 15:12:22 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread

On December 18, 2002 at 16:59:10, Omid David Tabibi wrote:

>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 don't see anything that shows demonstrated superiority of R=2 over R=3.  You
say to look at table 2 -- so do I.  It shows that R=2 gets one more correct
through ply 10, but takes over twice as long to do it.  I suggest that if R=3
were allowed to continue until R=2 is finished, that it would have found
significantly more than 1 solution in the mean time.

Table 6 has no node counts, so I don't know how much faster R=3 is than R=2.  It
gets 286 as opposed to 292.  Fine.  How much less time did it take to get it?

Maybe VR=3 is better than R=3.  The paper should allow me to draw this

A reason that I bring up the comparison between R=3 and R=2, is if you are
proving that R=3 is better than R=2, and you don't think that R=3 is better than
R=2, then maybe your other results are flawed.

You are writing a paper on some aspect of biological science, and your data is
suddenly implying that evolution doesn't take place.  Doesn't *that* seem worth

Either you are on the verge of a serious breakthrough, or your testing process
is wrong.  You need to figure out which.

This page took 0.01 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.