Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: The page in question - Give me a break

Author: martin fierz

Date: 18:02:03 09/03/02

Go up one level in this thread


On September 03, 2002 at 20:32:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>On September 03, 2002 at 18:49:08, martin fierz wrote:
>
>the problem is the speedups he didn't round off.
>the problem is the search TIMES. No way to see his
>search numbers as rounded off numbers. please see the
>table:
>
>pos     1       2       4       8       16
>1       2,830   1,415   832     435     311
>2       2,849   1,424   791     438     274
>3       3,274   1,637   884     467     239
>4       2,308   1,154   591     349     208
>5       1,584   792     440     243     178
>6       4,294   2,147   1,160   670     452
>7       1,888   993     524     273     187
>8       7,275   3,637   1,966   1,039   680
>9       3,940   1,970   1,094   635     398
>10      2,431   1,215   639     333     187
>11      3,062   1,531   827     425     247
>12      2,518   1,325   662     364     219
>13      2,131   1,121   560     313     192
>14      1,871   935     534     296     191
>15      2,648   1,324   715     378     243
>16      2,347   1,235   601     321     182
>17      4,884   2,872   1,878   1,085   814
>18      646     358     222     124     84
>19      2,983   1,491   785     426     226
>20      7,473   3,736   1,916   1,083   530
>21      3,626   1,813   906     489     237
>22      2,560   1,347   691     412     264
>23      2,039   1,019   536     323     206
>24      2,563   1,281   657     337     178
>
>That's not rounded off numbers at all.

hi vincent,

well, if i calculate time(1processor)/time(2processors) for this
table, one thing is obvious: all numbers i get are rounded to 0.1
already. this means that the numbers given in the table are not
numbers he measured at all. if bob claimed that he *measured* these
numbers, yes, i would conclude (like you did i think) that his
data was fabricated (with 100% certainty).
but i think bob admitted that somewhere else in this thread?
something like that he measured speedups, rounded them, and just
calculated the times with the help of his rounded speedups? of
course, this is not what you would want to do, so the paper is
definitely flawed, but not invalid because of that flaw.

anyway, if i then calculate the average speedup of 2 vs. 1 processor
it comes out as 1.96, which bob with his "newmath" would report as 2.0.
which is exactly what he did.

aloha
  martin



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.