Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:54:41 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 18:22:04, Dave Gomboc 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. >> >>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'. >> >>Additionally, the only other thing to support DTS, you PhD thesis, appears >>to be basically totally unfindable for third parties. >> >>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. >> >>If Vincent wanted to discredit your results, then as far as I'm concerned, >>he's succeeded 100%. >> >>-- >>GCP > > >I don't agree: the main result is the speedup, which was directly measured -- >though I'm certainly not a fan of the estimated node counts being there (at >least without something saying "estimated", which the article may or may not >have done). In this case, Vincent's "your bad memory" would actually be right. The only thing that would have been better would be had he simply asked me specifically what he stated in his first post here. He mentioned a week ago that he thought my data was "faked". I had no idea what he was talking about and I told him _exactly_ what we had done for the speedup stuff.. How I ran the tests, taking pondering into account, etc. Never for a minute thought he was talking about the nodes or times, because he kept talking about the 11.1 is fake... He was right and wrong. The 11.1 was _not_ a faked result. But the node counts were definitely calculated because that was the only way I could think of to come up with them. > >But in the main, the least reliable source for information at CCC is Vincent -- >indeed, I'd go so far as to say that whenever he claims something, I tend to >believe that the opposite is true, unless there are some other, more credible >people who agree with him. > >Dave
This page took 0.02 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.