# Computer Chess Club Archives

## Messages

### Subject: Re: Proving something is better

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.

```