Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Proving something is better

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

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 0.12 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.