Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:15:50 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 18:03:14, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >However reasonable your explanations may be, the gist of your DTS article >and the most important thing for comparison were the speedup numbers. After >what we discovered and what you just posted, it is clear that they are >based on very shaky foundations. How so? The speedup numbers were _directly_ computed by dividing times. Nodes were impossible to grab in the middle of a search so we computed what they "should have been" and we did do some testing to be sure that the estimation was very accurate... > >What's far worse, until you were directly accused, there was no indication >whatsoever for all the fiddling that was done with the auxiliary data. When >you were accused, you denied again, until other people supported Vincent's >point of view, when you suddenly got an email from an unknown person you're >not willing to disclose that 'refreshed your memory'. Sorry, but this was the first I heard about it. Vincent mentioned this about a week ago, but gave _no_ specifics. And you are right, I didn't remember. I am sure there are lots of other things I no longer remember either. But that doesn't mean things were fabricated. But if you want to believe so, feel free. It doesn't change a thing either way... > >Additionally, the only other thing to support DTS, you PhD thesis, appears >to be basically totally unfindable for third parties. University microfilm will sell you a printed copy. It was published in 1988 at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. So far as I know, they microfiche every dissertation published and provide copies for what cost I don't know. I certainly bought more than one from them over the years, but the last was so long ago I have no idea what they charged me for it. (it was berliner's 1970 dissertation). > >I hope you realize that a request from you to trust your numbers isn't >very convincing. In fact, with what we know now, I'm pretty sure the >article would never have gotten published in the first place. I do not agree. The speedup numbers were verified by several different people. The node counts were a issue that was not easily handled, but someone wanted node counts shown because "everybody else had published them previously, including my dissertation." I would certainly feel sure that the node counts are well within 99+% accurate. I'd be happy to run a short test on Crafty and do the same calculations to show you why I am that certain... > >If Vincent wanted to discredit your results, then as far as I'm concerned, >he's succeeded 100%. Fine. If that helps him produce a better speedup, good for him. But the speedup number was absolutely produced from raw data... and the speedup was what the article was all about. The other numbers were requested to be compatible with other papers. That's all there was to it... Take 'em or leave 'em... > >-- >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.