Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 18:08:39 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
in computerchess it only goes about the times. nothing else matters. not the 'speedup' number, but the times. if you invent yourself a speedup number and calculate based upon that the time, then your whole thing is a big lie simply. It is provable that all search times from 1-8 cpu's at all tests are completely not true. they are about a factor 2 too fast in order to let the 16 processor look good. We do not talk about round off errors here. But a completely faked 1-8 cpu's time picture. On September 03, 2002 at 21:02:03, martin fierz wrote: >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.