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 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.