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. bruce
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.