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. Miguel > > >>bruce
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.