Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 21:58:30 12/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2002 at 23:24:08, Bruce Moreland wrote: >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 Why do you insist so much about the difference between R=2 and R=3, one comes to believe as if my article is about that comparison! The main issue was to show that vrfd R=3 is superior to both R=2 and R=3. What is not clear? Based on the presented data: Isn't it clear that vrfd R=3 is superior to std R=2 ? Isn't it clear that vrfd R=3 is superior to std R=3 ?
This page took 0.39 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.