Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:32:05 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 23:42:57, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 03, 2002 at 22:19:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >the word 'time' is the crucial thing bob everywhere. >in fact in crafty you don't even mention how many nodes it needs >each ply. you just post how much time a ply it needs. sometimes it's >not even clear whether it finished or started a plydepth for the outside, >just the time is always very clear mentionned. Certainly... > >We talk about time. if you have the times, you can calculate the >speedups. nothing more and nothing less. Never said otherwise. I specifically said that the speedups were calculated _from_ the times mined from the log files for the 5 tests... > >if you have a speedup and consider time to get that speedup a detail, >then the speedup numbers are not true. If the times are not correct >therefore nothing can be correct. If the times are there to hide the >speedup of 16 cpu's was not as great as 1-8 cpu's, then it is obvious >not a fair thing to do. I have no idea what you mean. The speedups _were_ directly calculated from the times in the log files. That table was put into the paper. Nodes and times were added much later. Perhaps 2-3 years even. Remember that the game was played late in 1993 in Indianapolis. I ran the 1-2-4-8 tests during the next year. So it was essentially finished in 1994. It was published several years later after significant revisions to shorten it, and a few additions to add more data. That's all that happened. The speedups _were_ the critical data that were calculated directly from log times. I've said it several times. You don't listen... > >The times bob. Not a round off scenario can save you. Not an 'excel >rounded my times to whole numbers' scenario can save you. > >Do these times look like 'rounded off times' to you? Sure not to me: I haven't said a thing about rounding times. Someone asked about rounding off the speedups which certainly happened since they are only given to one decimel place... But no one has suggested _anything_ about rounding the times. As I said, it is possible that when we computed the node counts, we computed the time, since the speedups were computed from the raw times, the raw times can be reconstructed with very little error from the speedups... > > >First, times in seconds: > >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 > >But if horrors are not enough. He there are MORE statistical ways to >review results. amazingly, but true. > >anyway. it is bedtime here. tomorrow another output hopefully if the >excel experts are awake. > I can hardly wait. If you spent as much time working on improving your stuff as you do trying to discredit everyone else, you'd be far better off... But follow the path you think does you the best service...
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.