Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:31:47 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 21:08:39, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. Where do you get that from? Another of your "proofs"? Like your proof about the non-smp vs smp version of crafty being way faster? I like those proofs. Nothing to back them up. No documents. No results. No nothing but "I said so"... Several people over the years ran speedup tests on Cray Blitz for fun. Even at ACM events. Larry Kaufman if you want to ask him about what it was doing in 1993. 11.0 was not uncommon at all, contrary to your nonsense. Just because _you_ can't do it doesn't mean it is impossible. Not by _any_ stretch of my imagination... Of course, you are the same person that argued for a >2 speed up for a year, but now you say the almost 2.0 speedup of Cray Blitz is impossible. :) Man how I love consistency... > >We do not talk about round off errors here. But a completely >faked 1-8 cpu's time picture. Nothing faked at all, sorry. Except perhaps your scientific reasoning. > >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.