Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 19:12:43 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread


On December 18, 2002 at 22:08:39, Andrew Dados wrote:

>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 :)
>

And why do you think that vrfd R=3 won't be superior to std R=2 if they both use
checks in q-search?

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



This page took 0.13 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.