Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 10:15:53 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 13:07:54, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 03, 2002 at 13:05:30, Matthew Hull wrote: > >It gives the reason why i took a closer statistical look >at his data. In order to find what his speed penalties were >for processors. I guess I don't understand how you know what the speed penalties are for a Cray. Isn't that what the numbers are from, a Cray? >Then the fraud he committed was easy to find >out. > >>On September 03, 2002 at 12:57:38, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On September 03, 2002 at 12:54:05, Matthew Hull wrote: >>> >>>>Perhaps if you had a good understanding and experience of Cray architecture, >>>>your statement would have more weight. But, the supercomputer you are using is >>>>really very different from a Cray >>> >>>This has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever hardware was used. It >>>has nothing to do with Vincent doing something different from Robert. >> >>Yes it does!!! look at the text from Vincent's post: >> >>"Nevertheless i worried about how to report about it. So i checked out the >>article from Robert Hyatt again. Already in 1999 when i had implemented >>a pc-DTS version i wondered why i never got near the speeds of bob >>when i was not forward pruning other than nullmove." >> >>That's why Vincent is trying to discredit Bob's numbers, because Vincent can't >>duplicate them. Looks obvious to me. >> >> >>> >>>The issue is the nature of the data that was presented in the DTS >>>article by Robert. >>> >>>-- >>>GCP
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.