Author: Andrew Dados
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 >>>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. I meant refrain from producing tons of 'scientific' papers with wrong or unjustified conclusions. Instead of vr=3 and 80% more nodes overhead simply 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-
This page took 0 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.