Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:37:32 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 17:11:14, Peter Berger wrote: >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 It turns out it was probably wrong. Although the person I talked to could not remember whether we used floats or ints for the data. He _thinks_ floats because Harry produced some ungodly node counts running on a Cray for days at a single position. But the problem was not as serious as it first sounded, and after a 15 minute phone conversation, my memory was a bit more clear on what we did and why. Let me know if that discussion makes more sense...
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.