Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 22:12:49 12/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2002 at 01:05:24, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >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. > Had I thought that it is not crystal clear, I would have added those two 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 0.02 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.