Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 09:32:41 12/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2002 at 06:29:44, Ed Schröder 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. > >>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. > Or as Chrilly Donninger said: "a good computer chess article is like a cook-book recipe. One has to try it out. Sometimes it tastes well, sometimes the result is dog-food." >Good luck with Genesis. > Thanks. Genesis is my research engine, which has proved reliable for trying new ideas. Currently I'm developing a much stronger engine, hopefully it will be ready by WCCC in Graz 2003. It is still nameless though, any suggestions for a name are most welcomed! >Ed > > >>Omid.
This page took 0.04 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.