Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:23:07 09/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 2002 at 09:48:14, David Dory wrote: If you would have followed the thread you will see i tried to talk with Bob about it at 13 august for about 3 hours in a calm way, but it was not possible. Everything was denied. Even that recursive nullmove (R=3 i use) was not recognized as something that changes speedup, despite even crafty showed with asymmetric king safety a 0.2 difference in speedup. 2.8 versus 3.0 Bob denied it and also denies the 2.8 speedup but claims 3.1 instead. His own few testpositions then he emailed to me and he claimed 3.0 at it, not 3.1. Now he refers again last weeks here at CCC as 3.1 to it. I showed that every idiot with a parallel search can get a good speedup in the positions Bob used for his crafty proof. If he also misquotes all numbers to me, like not mentionning difference between analysis mode in crafty NOT using asymmetric king safety and he does, it is simply *denied* that things like singular extensions are very bad for speedup, especially when running at a lot of processors. Even if you show hard proof it is denied. If you show 30 positions of crafty, not to mention the 100+ i ran here at DIEP, it is denied and a week later forgotten. How can i speak with someone who emails me that crafty copies 44KB data structure and nalimov finds out it is 3KB? How can i speak with someone who claims last few weeks he removed last ply pruning out of crafty before 1997, where i can show from source code that it was still in it at 1999? How can you speak with someone who claims deep blue searched 12 ply with unimaginable extensions, then later says they searched 17-18, and even for 6 months doesn't look in hard data written by DB team themselves, and even then i still didn't hear a statement from bob they searched 11-12 ply. They claim 12.2 ply, whatever they want, 11 or 12 i don't care. If they say it's 12.2 fine with me. But not 17-18 ply. How can you speak with someone who claims in conversation to me that crafty gets beaten by Cray Blitz with 5-0 without ever showing proofs, games or whatever? In fact he quotes that every year. In fact i have email where i ask for a Cray executable, NWO here has some Crays you know... "i don't have it someone else did the test" I am not someone to spit deeper back than 1997 but i'm sure that if you really want to hurt you should spit in that thesis and run a statistical analysis on it. Not a single logfile from cray blitz exists anymore. I have it in my email box, but the numbers of the paper get posted here within a few seconds when he needs them... >On September 04, 2002 at 00:50:53, Wayne Lowrance wrote: > >>I am fed up with Bob Hyatt's arrogance. Cool it Bob, your standing and stature >>here at CCC is secure. Remarks such as you are famous for are only harming you >>in my judgement. >>Your name is one of very few I respect. There are many here on it and Vincent, >>Christophe, Sarrah (not sure of spelling) are others to mention several. >> >>Thanks >>Wayne > >The arrogance belongs to Vincent. Instead of stating his thoughts in a calm, >factual manner, and asking questions about the validity, test methodology, etc., >he just HAS to open his big mouth and pour out the invectives: "this is total >fraud,", and the like. > >Not in a private e-mail. Oh no! He'll pick the most public of forums for his >shit smearing episodes, and use the most sand-lot, 3rd grade language, to boot. > >As another poster noted long ago, if Vincent wasn't so good in chess and active >in programming, he'd have been kicked off of CCC long ago for his totally horrid >habit of name-calling. > >There aren't many programming topics that Vincent hasn't labeled a baboon's >butt, or similar. Anything that he doesn't clearly understand, he labels "total >shit" or a lie, immediately. Seems like he can't spit out remarks like that fast >enough, while he flits around from this conclusion to that one, like a bloody >bee around a garden of flowers. > >Vincent's a sharp guy, but he's got little maturity to his understanding - even >Rolf posted up on that. If you doubt it, just do a good read in the archives. > >After you receive personal help several times from someone. I think it's so rude >to call the guy who helped you a liar and claim his data was faked on an >important paper, in such a public arena. > >ANYBODY with ANY class would have asked about his concerns, in private. > >But that's not how Vincent works, OH NO. That would be too civilized. > >David
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.