Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 21:02:32 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread


On December 18, 2002 at 23:40:39, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:

>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.
>

His point was basically a replay of a week of discussions we had on
fixed-depth vs. fixed-time comparisons.

ftp://ftp.talkchess.com/ccc/d1021121.zip
ftp://ftp.talkchess.com/ccc/d1021122.zip
ftp://ftp.talkchess.com/ccc/d1021123.zip
ftp://ftp.talkchess.com/ccc/d1021124.zip
ftp://ftp.talkchess.com/ccc/d1021125.zip
ftp://ftp.talkchess.com/ccc/d1021126.zip
ftp://ftp.talkchess.com/ccc/d1021127.zip
ftp://ftp.talkchess.com/ccc/d1021128.zip
ftp://ftp.talkchess.com/ccc/d1021129.zip
ftp://ftp.talkchess.com/ccc/d1021130.zip


>Miguel
>
>>
>>
>>>bruce



This page took 0.05 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.