# Computer Chess Club Archives

## Messages

### Subject: Re: Proving something is better

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.

```