# Computer Chess Club Archives

## Messages

### Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Date: 18:48:03 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread

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

>On December 18, 2002 at 18:12:22, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>
>>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
>
>Bruce,
>
>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
>
>Based on the programmers' feedbacks I additionally posted several implementation
>suggestions for the various variants of this algorithm, which I'm sure you'll
>
>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.

-Andrew-

```