Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 15:29:33 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 18:15:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. But what times? Certainly not the times you reported. All we have is 5 speedup numbers that nobody every reproduced and likely will never reproduce due to the hardware involved. >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... Which wasn't noted anywhere except just now. >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). Any way to get one of those in Belgium, considering I'm currently no longer attach to any university? I'm interested in it regardless, since I'm experimenting with DTS-like algorithms. >>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. Apparently, those people completely failed to address all points that were just brought up, so that's not very convincing, is it. >I'd be happy to run a short test on Crafty and do the same calculations to >show you why I am that certain... Crafty and Cray Blitz are not comparable. If they were, I would have redone your tests as soon a I had access to your quad. As it stands, I can only do them with Crafty, and you know just as well as I that the results of Crafty don't quite look as spectacular as what you published from Cray Blitz (for the obvious reasons that they're using different algorithms). >>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... You were claiming the exact same thing about the time data 2 hours ago. I don't know if you faked the results to look better or not. Maybe I don't want to know. But whatever be of it, there is little scientific ground to keep them standing, IMHO. -- 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.