Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:01:16 08/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2004 at 15:02:46, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On August 24, 2004 at 10:04:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>Are you saying that Anandtech's measurements are not real data? >> >>I am saying I have no idea what they are reporting. I haven't read it and don't >>really care... > >Oh, that's grand. You say things like: > >"I hate to cloud all the disinformation here with real data" > >and > I was referring to _your_ comments, of course... >"It took a good bit of time to get a company to help me run the test. I didn't >do it 'lightly'. Unlike most of your tests..." > >You call Anandtech's and my data disinformation, and that we ran the tests >'lightly' (whatever that means), and in the same breath you say that you can't >be bothered to even look at or care about the data. I don't call anandtech's data _anything_. I clearly said that _your_ test did _not_ prove what you claimed it proved. Nothing more. Nothing less. Anything else is from your imagination... > >That's terrific, you have no moral qualms about badmouthing data that you >haven't even looked at. That's real first-class behavior. > >As for your wonderful "real data," I thought of an explanation for it that also >agrees with my data, namely, most of the cache misses are warming the cache for >each new position. If you calculate the cache misses per node after the cache is >already warmed up (using the method I suggested) you'd have an idea of how much >memory Crafty when it's in the middle of a search. > >-Tom I can do that and will report the results later. Want to wager whether it changes things or not with respect to my working set size estimations??? Think about it before you answer.
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.