Author: Andrew Dados
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 >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. Please, refrain... -Andrew-
This page took 0.01 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.