Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 17:15:04 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 20:00:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: here a small part of what we discussed during our 3 hour conversation at 20 august 2002 at icc: . if i can show that there is a chance that something has a chance of 1 - 1 / 10^30 to happen, then that's accepted even by law to be how something happened (told Hyatt) . not to mention in science (told Hyatt) diep(C) tells you: diep's not doing very well vs. crafty tell diep it's repeating games (told diep, who is playing) . what is in diep.ini (told diep, who is playing) . tournament false ? (told diep, who is playing) Hyatt tells you: ok... what does that have to do with DTS paper??? . hopefully (told diep, who is playing) diep(C) tells you: let me check tell hyatt it's not so hard to show that the numbers are not the numbers you had at your output (told Hyatt) diep(C) tells you: yikes it's on true diep(C) tells you: fixed just now . with a chance of 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999 (told Hyatt) Hyatt tells you: I have no idea what you mean... they came _directly_ from the logs... . about 30 nines (told Hyatt) . 30 nines bob (told Hyatt) . not 1 (told Hyatt) Hyatt tells you: that is _meaningless_... Hyatt tells you: I _know_ where the data came from... diep(C) tells you: is this endgame lost?! . me too (told Hyatt) . and it wasn't from the logs (told Hyatt) Hyatt tells you: it was very close to the data that was presented in my dissertation... . with exception of the 16 processor run (told Hyatt) Hyatt tells you: it _absolutely_ was from the logs... Hyatt tells you: and I'm sorry to say I have _no_ idea what you are talking about here... Hyatt tells you: IE I did _exactly_ the same thing in the DTS paper that I did in the test I ran for you the other day with 1 and 4 procssors... Hyatt tells you: Just grabbed matching times and computed the speedup... . i'm not talking about crafty here bob (told Hyatt) Hyatt tells you: I am talking about _both_... . but about the DTS numbers presented in march 1997 (told Hyatt) . page 16 issue 1 1997 (told Hyatt) . table 3 (told Hyatt) Hyatt tells you: they were obtained the same way... Hyatt tells you: brb.. son on phone... wants to ask me something.. . my question is simply what you prefer i go for in a publication (told Hyatt) diep(C) tells you: diep could be in trouble because of no egtb . take your time to answer bob (told Hyatt, who has been idle for 2 minutes) date Tue Aug 13 22:18:37 EDT (New York time) diep(C) tells you: ? Hyatt tells you: totally up to you... if you want to claim I faked the data, feel free. I won't have a lot of trouble proving I didn't. I'm sure I can find a C90 to run a few positions on for a witness... diep(C) tells you: kc4-b5-a6 diep(C) tells you: then pawns run diep(C) tells you: right? tell hyatt the easy alternative is to blame nullmove and the bigger search depths (told Hyatt, who has been idle for 3 minutes) . you got like 11 ply or so at 16 processors at the time? (told Hyatt, who has been idle for 3 minutes) . i start at 11 ply of course single cpu already (told Hyatt, who has been idle for 4 minutes) diep(C) tells you: now i think it's a draw tell diep moment important discussion here (told diep, who is playing) Hyatt tells you: I don't believe _either_ approach will work... you either have to claim null-move is the problem, where _anybody_ with Crafty can show that it is a minor issue... or you have to claim that data was faked which is also simple to disprove... tell hyatt as proven so far it's 0.2 different in speedup at 4 processors already (told Hyatt) . that's a lot (told Hyatt) . diep it's bigger (told Hyatt) Hyatt tells you: problem is, we tried crafty with _no_ null move, we should have tried it with R=1... Hyatt tells you: as that was what CB used... diep(C) tells you: umm Bg5? diep(C) tells you: why not bc7 Hyatt tells you: I suspect the difference between R=1 and R=2 is even smaller than .1 with 4 processors... . CB had non recursive nullmove right? (told Hyatt) diep(C) tells you: and shuffle . saving up to 25-75% nodes that R=1 thing didn't it? (told Hyatt) Hyatt tells you: yes . nullmove for diep saves about factor 100 (told Hyatt) . 4 ply (told Hyatt) . 10000% (told Hyatt) Hyatt tells you: not for crafty... about 2 plies for me generally... Hyatt tells you: maybe 2-3 with R=3 . at tournament time sure. now i go produce outputs with a lot of processors (told Hyatt) . so single cpu that'll be like thirty times 3 minutes = 90 minutes (told Hyatt) Hyatt tells you: that was the hard part of the DTS article... running positions for 1 hour is not easy on a machine that might not stay up that long... . i have no such problems (told Hyatt) . machine has 1024 processors (told Hyatt) . 1 terabyte/s bandwidth (told Hyatt) . plenty of processors to use a few for testing (told Hyatt) Hyatt tells you: I did... my machine was a software development machine as well as a production machine. To run that game at one cpu took over one day of cpu time... which meant 2-3 days of non-interrupted running... that was _hard_ to get... Hyatt tells you: they rebooted at night to test different O/S patches, and that would kill my test as the engire game had to be played in one session... . this machine idles a lot. we both know why. (told Hyatt) . and after 5 PM when scientists go home i can test on this testpartition easily (told Hyatt) . like i do now (told Hyatt) diep(C) tells you: = ob diep You are now observing game 502. tell diep yes = (told diep, who is playing) >On September 03, 2002 at 19:54:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >How can you calculate speedup based upon node counts >instead of time? > >Where is the accurate time table if your latest statement now >is that the time table in journal of icca is not correct? > >You seem to have you roriginal text of your paper still at home, >so you must have the logfiles still too? > >Best regards, >Vincent > >>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 0.01 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.