Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 17:02:08 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread


On December 18, 2002 at 19:51:11, Bruce Moreland wrote:

>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.
>

Your criticism is welcomed after you read the thorough discussions already
conducted on your very raised issues. I am not interested in merely repeating
what has already been said just recently, and I don't think the forum is
interested either.

If you have new points, they are most welcomed.


>bruce



This page took 0.06 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.