Author: Tony Werten
Date: 00:31:19 09/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 18:03:14, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >However reasonable your explanations may be, the gist of your DTS article >and the most important thing for comparison were the speedup numbers. After >what we discovered and what you just posted, it is clear that they are >based on very shaky foundations. I must be missing something. The only thing I see wrong with the speedup numbers is the way they are calculated. Since time was measured in miliseconds ie 3 significant numbers after the dot, the speedup should have been given in 3 significant numbers behind the dot as well. Rounding it to tenths was simple wrong. Strange nobody noticed before, but not that important. The reason why nobody noticed is probably because these rounding rules are more part of the chemistry domain (or nature science). I guess mathematicians or computer science people are less aware of them. Tony > >What's far worse, until you were directly accused, there was no indication >whatsoever for all the fiddling that was done with the auxiliary data. When >you were accused, you denied again, until other people supported Vincent's >point of view, when you suddenly got an email from an unknown person you're >not willing to disclose that 'refreshed your memory'. > >Additionally, the only other thing to support DTS, you PhD thesis, appears >to be basically totally unfindable for third parties. > >I hope you realize that a request from you to trust your numbers isn't >very convincing. In fact, with what we know now, I'm pretty sure the >article would never have gotten published in the first place. > >If Vincent wanted to discredit your results, then as far as I'm concerned, >he's succeeded 100%. > >-- >GCP
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.