Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 03:29:44 12/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
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. >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 is a senseless discussion. Whether R=2 or R=3 is better depends on the *other stuff* you have in your program, that's the key, every programmer has to find out himself. For me that was R=3 for the midgame and R=2 for the endgame. Good luck with Genesis. Ed >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.