Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 19:00:08 12/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2002 at 21:48:03, Andrew Dados wrote: >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... > Sorry Andrew, I didn't understand what you meant. BTW, are you still working on Rookie?! >-Andrew-
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.