Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 22:11:09 12/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2002 at 19:04:28, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On December 18, 2002 at 16:13:59, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>I conducted self-play matches between std R=2 and std R=3. The results showed >>that std R=2 is superior, and that was enough for me. > >If you are throwing other test suite data away because it contradicts your >conclusion, you should not be drawing conclusions from other test suite data. > >You have test suite data supporting R=3 over R=2. > >You have test suite data supporting VR=3 over R=2. > >You have game play data supporting VR=3 over R=2. > >You have unpublished game data supporting VR=3 over R=3. > >You have to throw something out, so you are willing to throw out the test suite >data for R=3 over R=2 because it doesn't support your conclusion. > >It is unclear why you choose to throw out this evidence rather than some other >evidence. What leads you to believe that this evidence is spurious while the >other is not? > In the previous version of the article, published as a Technical Report (ftp://ftp.cfar.umd.edu/TRs/CVL-Reports-2002/TR4406-tabibi.ps.gz), I didn't include Table 4, node counts on WCS positions. I didn't add it because I used WCS mainly for tactical comparisons, and thus thought that presenting the node counts would be superfluous. Now, did I want to hide that data? Does it make the evidence spurious? (Eventually, one of the reviewers of the paper suggested that I include that table anyway for the sake of completeness.) >And if the test suite evidence is spurious, why include it in order to support >VR=3 over R=2? Throwing data out when it contradicts your conclusion and >keeping it when it supports your conclusion doesn't seem proper. > >The autoplay games aren't up on the website, by the way. > >bruce
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.