Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 20:24:08 12/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2002 at 22:43:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 18, 2002 at 17:18:56, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>But this doesn't address the problem I pointed out with Omid's thing: >> >>A takes 30 seconds, produces 50 answers. >> >>B takes 40 seconds, produces 55 answers. >> >>It makes absolutely no sense to say that B is better than A, and if the time >>differential is large enough, and the difference in number of solutions is small >>enough, it may make sense to say the reverse. > > >I don't disagree there... I've lost Omid, so I'll try to get you to see what I'm talking about then. Omid proves that with his program, VR=3 is better than R=2. He assumed before he started that R=2 is better than R=3. So he never tested R=3 to create a baseline, before tweaking R=3 to create VR=3. But he does include numbers for R=3 for a couple of test suites, and the solution numbers are almost identical with R=2. Of course R=3 takes about 40% as much time as R=2, so these numbers are superior. So for these suites, R=3 is better than R=2 for this program. How do you compare a variant of R=3 against anything when your program is already acting as if R=3 is better than R=2? The numbers are either bogus or point to a larger conclusion. bruce
This page took 0.01 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.