Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Proving something is better

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 0.05 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.