Author: Marc Lacrosse
Date: 04:58:12 01/15/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2006 at 04:56:15, Uri Blass wrote: > >Your experiment show nothing > Mmmm. I agree my method is not perfect but I think it is not without any value. > >My point is that you cannot compare number of solution in x seconds with number >of solutions in y seconds and get conclusions. Your counterexemple is OK but does not prove that this comparison has no sense in any other more usual cases. > >The only logical comparison is comaparison of time to solve x solutions and time >to solve y solutions and you did not do that comparison. > >Uri Why are you always so peremptory ? I do not see anything in your post supporting the fact that your recommended comparison should be the _only_ logical one. Moreover your clear-clut unproven affirmation is easy to refute. Just take this simple example : Two engines A and B 100 positions to solve Please plot the following values : solved positions time A time B 0 00 00 10 10 05 20 21 13 30 33 24 40 46 38 50 60 55 60 75 75 70 91 98 80 108 124 90 126 153 100 145 185 If I take your criterion examining the time needed to solve 30 positions, engine B (24 sec) is a faster searcher than engine A (33sec). But If I take your criterion to see the time needed to solve 90 positions, engine A (126sec) is faster than B (153 sec). Where is the truth ? It completely depends on your arbitrary choice of the time at which you compare the engines. Moreover, you cannot compare engines whose strength is very different with a single set of testpositions using your methodology whereas you can do it with mine as each engine is compared to itself in mine. So I surely would not say that your ideas are false but I feel you could be more prudent when you affirm that yours are the one and only truth... Regards Marc
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.