Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 11:22:05 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 13:51:52, Uri Blass wrote: It is about the second digit being round, because that makes the chance you have such a speedup 1/10 of a chance. Bob claims a 2.0 speedup which bob claims according to his paper based upon counting up all times then dividing by total times. However if we look at every speedup individually then if you get a 2.0 speedup that's in a range of 1.95-2.04 RIGHT? Please answer that question. A speedup of 2.0 lies in a range of about 1.95-2.04 So i hope you realize that chance it is 2.00 is exactly 1/10 of a chance. How big is the chance that 50 numbers in a row have a speedup in parallel search of 2.00 then? How big is the chance that all numbers end at a 0? We talk about a lot of data. about 24 positions in the article times 1,2,4,8,16 processors. The 16 processor times and nodes i believe. i didn't statisticaly analyze very well whether he has lied about the number of nodes as well. This is not important in my feeling. My feeling says he didn't lie about the number of nodes. He had however very bad speeedup 1..8 processor, so he had to modify them *all* in order to look good. No one checks search outputs in computerchess. the peer reviewers are a joke with regard to the DATA you present. Yes they know a lot about how to write an article, but they know nothing from how to present DATA. In fact they take everything for granted. I can however imagine in this case that most peer reviewers didn't statistically analyze the search times. If you divide the 1 processor search time by the 2,4,8 times you will clearly see that all these search times are a big fraud however. If every number has 1/10 of a chance to get there, then we talk about a very *small* chance Bob had this data by accident. 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 >On September 03, 2002 at 13:45:09, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On September 03, 2002 at 13:31:15, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>there is 24 positions x 1,2,4,8,16 processors. >>so there is pretty much data. You can see it in >>first icca from 1997 where bob describes DTS. >> >>If i claim an average speedup of 1.90 then there is >>a domain of about 1.85 - 1.949 where the speedups >>fall in. However bob's speedups all fall in only >>1/10 of it. So for every rounded number there is a >>1/10 chance. >> >>A few numbers where they have .01 that's a round off >>error usually. He modified his data a little but not >>enough to get outside the error margin of statistical >>analysis on data. >> >>In short for every round number there is about a 1/10 chance >>to happen. >> >>1/10^(24*3.5) is about 1 / 10^30 > >I did not read the article but >I saw in your post only one round number with a lot of 0's >(13). > >I understood from your post that 13 is only relevant to >position number 10 > >Here is the data again: > >pos 2 4 8 16 >1 2.0000 3.40 6.50 9.09 >2 2.00 3.60 6.50 10.39 >3 2.0000 3.70 7.01 13.69 >4 2.0000 3.90 6.61 11.09 >5 2.0000 3.6000 6.51 8.98876 >6 2.0000 3.70 6.40 9.50000 >7 1.90 3.60 6.91 10.096 >8 2.000 3.700 7.00 10.6985 >9 2.0000 3.60 6.20 9.8994975 = 9.90 >10 2.000 3.80 7.300 13.000000000000000 > >Uri
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.