Author: martin fierz
Date: 19:34:29 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
hi vincent, i cannot understand a word of what you say. what i see in the table is that all times given in the table, with the exception of the 1-processor column, are NOT measured numbers, but calculated numbers with the help of a factor which is rounded to one decimal place. >So Bob *had* to fake the outputs of 1-8 processors or his 16 processor >thing would look silly though it wasn't at all. these "calculated" times are there in all columns - 2,4,8,16 processors. the 16-processor time is also calculated from a 1-decimal place factor, just like the 2,4,8 columns. therefore, there is nothing *in this table* to suggest that the times in the 16-processor column are more or less "real" than the times in the other columns. so.... >>times. if you invent yourself a speedup number and >>calculate based upon that the time, then your whole >>thing is a big lie simply. ...bob explained: he had some original times, calculated the speedup, wrote that down, and for presentation in the paper, he didnt print the real times, but the original 1-processor time divided by the speedup. of course, if a student of mine did anything like that with his numbers i'd give him a serious talking-to, but if you accept the hypothesis that this is how he arrived at these numbers, then it is just really bad style, but not a big lie. >>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. how do you know that? if it is provable, then prove it... please explain that more clearly! i can definitely understand that you see a problem with the data in the table, but with all the rest, i don't understand :-( aloha martin
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.