Author: Mridul Muralidharan
Date: 14:10:11 04/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2004 at 23:49:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 29, 2004 at 23:19:43, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: > >>On April 29, 2004 at 18:54:16, Peter Skinner wrote: >> >>>On April 29, 2004 at 18:39:11, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>I trust more David Omid than you so your results have no value because we have >>>>no way to know that you use falcon. >>>> >>>>It is better if you do not waste time in these tests. >>>>I do not think that it is going to convince somebody. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Surely you don't think Vincent would fake results to try and make Robert look >>>bad... shame on you :) >>> >>>Peter >> >> >>Let us all not talk of "faking data" here ! >>There were some "incidents" , regarding "faking" that are quiet fresh in my >>memory even now ... esp regarding parallel search where there was some obvious >>faking and some not so obvious faking ;) >>So let us not get into all that now :) >>Relevence of this statement ? Relates to the "actors" (uml wise i mean) of the >>above discussion :) >> >>Mridul > > >I am aware of _no_ faking whatsoever... > >Do you know something I don't know??? Maybe "faking" was too strong a word (but then I did not start using it in this thread !). Maybe the words "aggressive approximation" and "hypothetical sample data" would be more appropriate ?? When I started researching on parallel chess algorithms , I went through lot of literature , which did include some mathematically flawed papers (I did read later that some of the data presented in some of those were for "illustration purposes" only ;) ) I hope you are getting the drift of what I am saying ?? Mridul
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.