Author: Peter Berger
Date: 14:11:14 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 16:08:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 03, 2002 at 14:22:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>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? > >Maybe or maybe not. I believe all those numbers were integers. And >I very likely did the normal integer round-up so that numbers > 1.90 >would become 2.0. I really don't remember now... > I think this post might get missed in the jungle by accident but it shouldn't - so I add an offbeat random answer :). This was my first thought looking at the data - and it is the most logical explanation by far IMHO. If needed - this could also be thought of as a flaw in the original publication btw , much more reasonable than believing the data itself is flawed I think. Regards, Peter
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.