Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 10:38:21 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. Then the fraud he committed was easy to find >out. > Look man, if all you got is that 13.00000 to prove your point, it's a pretty thin thread to hang your argument on. It looks like you're really reaching. And don't worry that you can't duplicate the numbers with DIEP on some supercomputer. If it's not a Cray, you won't be able to anyway. But if you ever get a quad XEON with interleaved memory, and still can't get to 1.7, then at least you're getting closer to a real argument. Regards, >>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 0.01 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.