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