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 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.