Author: Georg v. Zimmermann
Date: 01:22:55 09/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Roger, I am not taking side here but your post scares me a bit. Shouldnt we first look at content and then at presentation ? Vincents "bad taste" does not change facts at all. Nor do his motives. I can simply not understand nor follow the argumentation " Dr.Hyatt is a great guy and therefore we may not critisize errors/bad science/carelesness/fraud [select one] in his papers. Kind regards, Georg v. Zimmermann On September 04, 2002 at 01:34:18, Roger D Davis wrote: >Sorry Vincent, but this whole affair was presented in remarkable bad taste. In >my mind you've only damaged your own character and reputation: I find it odd >that someone who purports to have such extreme sensitivity to the truth could >have such insensitivity in regard to its presentation, and that certainly causes >me to doubt the sincerity of your motives. > >Roger > > > >On September 03, 2002 at 23:52:41, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On September 03, 2002 at 21:18:17, Roger D Davis wrote: >> >>sorry, but chess is an exact science. You have a speedup of 1.9 or you don't >>have a speedup of 1.9. It is very easy to measure. It is very easy to >>cheat by modifying it to 2.0 too. >> >>If it is modified, then sometimes statistical analysis can show that >>very clearly. >> >>In this case it does. >> >>Don't comapre with something that is not exact science please. >> >>You have a 2.0 speedup or you don't have a 2.0 speedup. hardware doesn't >>matter. Lies matter here. In this case modified search times to cover up >>a problem of 1-8 processors versus 16 processors. >> >>I am not here to tell you about the computer it ran on. I am here to >>show that there is a problem with the results written down. >> >>You can discuss results because: "such a good speedup can't happen", >>or "such a bad speedup is unexaplainable". >> >>But we can't discuss about this. It's a clear case of fraud. Nothing else. >> >> >>>I can tell you honestly that if I had to go back to my dissertation and >>>replicate my results, I doubt that I could do it. Just too much water under the >>>bridge. My memory is far to foggy to go back to all that data and all those >>>print outs, put everything back together again, and justify this or that >>>decision. My experience as a psychological researcher is that a lot of arbitrary >>>decisions are made on the way to some single statistic that presumably has >>>meaning. And then someone on your committee comes along and wants this or that >>>changed, and you do it because you need to show respect for senior professors, >>>although you might not agree at all. Every dissertation is the product of >>>compromise between a student and his committee. Likewise, most published >>>articles are the product of compromise between an author and the referees. The >>>process of science often introduces distortions that the author never intended, >>>including logical inconsistencies between one section of a document and another. >>>And that's just life. >>> >>>Roger >>> >>> >>>On September 03, 2002 at 20:48:08, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On September 03, 2002 at 20:20:48, Roger D Davis wrote: >>>> >>>>>Wow, this comment is in exceptionally bad taste. You don't question the >>>>>scientific integrity of a researcher lightly, particularly in a public forum. >>>> >>>>I was responding to this post from Robert: >>>> >>>>---quote---- >>>> >>>>[snip]... But that >>>>doesn't mean things were fabricated. >>>> >>>>But if you want to believe so, feel free. It doesn't change a thing either >>>>way... >>>> >>>>------------ >>>> >>>>I don't know what exactly happend with the results. It seems from this thread >>>>that even Robert doesn't know. Just because of this, no matter how they were >>>>produced, I think they are questionable. >>>> >>>>-- >>>>GCP
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.