Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Author: Miguel A. Ballicora

Date: 20:40:39 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread

On December 18, 2002 at 20:02:08, Omid David Tabibi wrote:

>On December 18, 2002 at 19:51:11, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>>On December 18, 2002 at 18:56:21, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>>>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.
>>This should not be used as a model response to criticism.
>Your criticism is welcomed after you read the thorough discussions already
>conducted on your very raised issues. I am not interested in merely repeating
>what has already been said just recently, and I don't think the forum is
>interested either.
>If you have new points, they are most welcomed.

I think that Bruce's point (R=2 vs R=3) was new.



This page took 0.01 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.