Author: Ralf Elvsén
Date: 04:15:42 09/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
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. > [SNIP] > >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 The times should have been included, since they are the raw data. Moreover so, since some "unconventional" rounding seem to have been done when computing the speedups. However, regarding "reproducible" and "faked" , how would the inclusion of the times make you happier? They wouldn't be more or less reproducible than the speedups, and they could very well be faked (which I don't believe). Please don't mix the issues of poor data presentation with the scientific intergrity of the work. Ralf
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.