Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Proving something is better

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
>>>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
>>>Either you are on the verge of a serious breakthrough, or your testing process
>>>is wrong.  You need to figure out which.
>>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?!


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.