Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 22:05:24 12/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2002 at 00:53:55, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On December 19, 2002 at 00:27:53, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >>On December 18, 2002 at 11:07:49, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>On December 18, 2002 at 03:21:02, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>On December 17, 2002 at 20:44:45, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>> >>>>>Heinz' experiments showed that std R=3 is weaker than std R=2 [1]. Bruce's >>>>>Ferret also used std R=2 in WCCC 1999 [2]. So I took the one which is believed >>>>>to be stronger (std R=2), and showed that vrfd R=3 is superior to it. >>>> >>>>Yes, but it is possible that normal R=3 is stronger than R=2, and that your >>>>enhancement is weaker than R=3. >>>> >>>>You directly claim to be better than R=2, which is acceptable, but you imply >>>>that you are better than R=3. It is possible that you are better than R=3, but >>>>you have not shown this to be true. >>>> >>>>You could have anchored your conclusion much better by demonstrating that your >>>>algorithm is superior to R=3 as well. It's important to do this, since your >>>>algorithm is related to R=3. >>>> >>>>Whether my own program uses R=2 or R=3 has nothing to do with this. That R=2 is >>>>accepted convention is all the more reason to challenging it by investigating >>>>R=3. If yours is better than R=3, you are winning on all fronts. If it is not >>>>better than R=3, your algorithm is very suspect, since it behaves differently >>>>than expected. Even if it's already *proven* that R=2 is better (which I >>>>doubt), you should take the time to prove it here, because if you prove it again >>>>it's evidence that your program is operating properly. >>>> >>>>It's nothing personal. I would argue these points regardless of who wrote the >>>>paper. >>>> >>>>bruce >>> >>>Have you ever conducted any research? If so, you would have known that a >>>researcher doesn't examine everything since the creation of earth, he takes >>>something which is known to be better and tries to improve it. >> >>In experimental sciences, many times things are repeated to certify that the >>rigth conditions for measures are correct. Many times, those serve as controls. >>It pretty much depends. >> > >True. If you repeat published experiments and your results simply confirm them, >there is no point to publish, but if your results contradict them, then you have >a new case. When something is repeat it and gives results that are expected, most of the times it is mentioned in the discussion to assert the accuracy of the procedure. It makes the paper better and it takes only two more lines. Miguel > >Before starting the experiments on verified null-move pruning, I tested R=2 >against R=3, and R=2 fared better. A few months ago I posted those results, also >claiming that in longer time controls the superiority of R=2 over R=3 is not >that significant (nevertheless, still superior). > >But the main point of the article isn't comparison between R=2 and R=3. It is >about showing that vrfd R=3 is superior to both R=2 and R=3, and the >experimental results conducted on thousands of positions strongly confirm that. > >For example, see Tables 2 and 6: vrfd R=3 solves about the same number of >positions as std R=1. See Table 4: vrfd R=3 solves far more positions than R=2 >and R=3. > >Based on these results, there is no room for doubt as to vrfd R=3's superiority. > > > >>Miguel >> >>> >>>I didn't think that someone will seriously claim that std R=3 is better than std >>>R=3; but now, I'd be glad to write another paper comparing those two, and also >>>mentioning fixed time comparisons if people find it interesting. Because >>>although not appearing the article, I have conducted tens of other types of >>>experiments (including fixed time) and I _know_ that vrfd R=2 is clearly >>>superior to std R=3. >>> >>>Omid.
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.