# Computer Chess Club Archives

## Messages

### Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Date: 19:08:39 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread

```On December 18, 2002 at 22:00:08, Omid David Tabibi wrote:

>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
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>
>Sorry Andrew, I didn't understand what you meant.

I meant refrain from producing tons of 'scientific' papers with wrong or
implement checks in q-search and get more tests right with 10-15% overhead.

Btw.. try self-playing vr=3 versus r=2 or 3 + checks in qsearch :)

>
>BTW, are you still working on Rookie?!
No, I stopped like 1 year ago.

>
>
>>-Andrew-

```