Author: maria clara benedicto
Date: 01:57:06 09/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
hmmmmmmmmmmmm............ On September 03, 2002 at 18:29:33, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 03, 2002 at 18:15:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. >> >>How so? The speedup numbers were _directly_ computed by dividing times. > >But what times? Certainly not the times you reported. All we have is 5 >speedup numbers that nobody every reproduced and likely will never >reproduce due to the hardware involved. > >>Nodes were impossible to grab in the middle of a search so we computed what >>they "should have been" and we did do some testing to be sure that the >>estimation was very accurate... > >Which wasn't noted anywhere except just now. > >>University microfilm will sell you a printed copy. It was published in >>1988 at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. So far as I know, they >>microfiche every dissertation published and provide copies for what cost >>I don't know. I certainly bought more than one from them over the years, >>but the last was so long ago I have no idea what they charged me for it. >>(it was berliner's 1970 dissertation). > >Any way to get one of those in Belgium, considering I'm currently no >longer attach to any university? I'm interested in it regardless, since >I'm experimenting with DTS-like algorithms. > >>>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. >> >> >>I do not agree. The speedup numbers were verified by several different >>people. > >Apparently, those people completely failed to address all points that >were just brought up, so that's not very convincing, is it. > >>I'd be happy to run a short test on Crafty and do the same calculations to >>show you why I am that certain... > >Crafty and Cray Blitz are not comparable. If they were, I would have redone >your tests as soon a I had access to your quad. As it stands, I can only do them >with Crafty, and you know just as well as I that the results of Crafty >don't quite look as spectacular as what you published from Cray Blitz (for >the obvious reasons that they're using different algorithms). > >>>If Vincent wanted to discredit your results, then as far as I'm concerned, >>>he's succeeded 100%. >> >>Fine. If that helps him produce a better speedup, good for him. But the >>speedup number was absolutely produced from raw data... > >You were claiming the exact same thing about the time data 2 hours ago. > >I don't know if you faked the results to look better or not. Maybe I don't >want to know. But whatever be of it, there is little scientific ground >to keep them standing, IMHO. > >-- >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.