Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:17:45 09/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 23:52:41, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >sorry, but chess is an exact science. I'm not as good as you in chess, I'm not a programmer of anything, but I have understood the basics of science and therefore let me comment on your paragraphs here. You will see how fast I can show you your mistakes. It's a pity. I can only recommand that you might take a little break because now you have kind of tunnel view and it spoils your conclusions - NOT observations. First, chess is no exact science of course. >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. Observation is one thing and conclusion is another. Could you try, I know that it's difficult at the moment, to consider the explanations given here? Your mistake is your belief that your conclusion is the only possible. All typical problems in science. > >Don't comapre with something that is not exact science please. Chess is like physics? Even if it were, it isn't of course, the concrete details decided. You confuse intentional fraud or fake with a possible weakness of the experimental design of Bob (as written in his article for ICCAJ). Therefore I recommanded some lessons in logic and science. It's all very basic. > >You have a 2.0 speedup or you don't have a 2.0 speedup. hardware doesn't >matter. Lies matter here. This is nonsense. Why hardware shouldn't matter? Did you ever think about data and presentation of data and the questions here? Intentional fraud and fake is a conclusion you should be able to prove. But first you only have the article for ICCAJ. > 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. This is ok!! But your conclusions are not ok, at least you can't prove them with verbal insults. This is evident. > >You can discuss results because: "such a good speedup can't happen", >or "such a bad speedup is unexaplainable". To discuss is different and has nothing to do with insulting. > >But we can't discuss about this. It's a clear case of fraud. Nothing else. You have proven it?? Where? Can't you differentiate between carelessness in design or presentation and intentional fraud? Rolf Tueschen
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.