Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Author: Bruce Moreland

Date: 16:51:11 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread

On December 18, 2002 at 18:56:21, Omid David Tabibi wrote:

>Apparently we are not looking at the data from the same perspective. As I told
>you before, I conducted self-play matches, and their results showed that std R=2
>is superior to std R=3. Although I still think that this finding is not worth
>publishing, as it is an already known fact.
>I understand your criticism of the fixed depth method, which is the standard
>scientific comparison in computer chess. But I'm afraid your case against fixed
>depth is not strong enough to convince the whole computer chess research
>community to opt for fixed time comparisons instead.
>Mentioning some fixed time experiments in a footnote or appendix could have been
>interesting; but even without them, my experiments took more than 6 months
>24h/d, 7d/w.
>If you have a specific experiment in mind, I would be glad to conduct whenever I
>get the time, but besides that, I would like the implemented algorithm in your
>program to speak for its own.
>In our discussion today, I didn't get into details and kept my replies short,
>because none of your points were new, and I have already discussed all these in
>detail a few weeks ago. I'm sure anyone who followed those discussions could
>have answered all your questions.
>Based on the programmers' feedbacks I additionally posted several implementation
>suggestions for the various variants of this algorithm, which I'm sure you'll
>find helpful.
>Now you will have to excuse me for not being able to continue the discussion,
>for I am up to my ears busy working on another paper (on Blockage Detection)
>which I hope to be ready soon.

This should not be used as a model response to criticism.


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.