Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:39:10 09/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 2002 at 00:32:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 03, 2002 at 23:42:57, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On September 03, 2002 at 22:19:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>the word 'time' is the crucial thing bob everywhere. >>in fact in crafty you don't even mention how many nodes it needs >>each ply. you just post how much time a ply it needs. sometimes it's >>not even clear whether it finished or started a plydepth for the outside, >>just the time is always very clear mentionned. > >Certainly... > > >> >>We talk about time. if you have the times, you can calculate the >>speedups. nothing more and nothing less. > >Never said otherwise. I specifically said that the speedups were calculated >_from_ the times mined from the log files for the 5 tests... Do you by this officially claim now that the table with the search times and node numbers is a fake table which you calculated later yourself based upon speedups which you had written down on a small noteblock? So the tables 3 and 4 on page 16 at icca issue 1 1997 are completely *faked* you claim now? >> >>if you have a speedup and consider time to get that speedup a detail, >>then the speedup numbers are not true. If the times are not correct >>therefore nothing can be correct. If the times are there to hide the >>speedup of 16 cpu's was not as great as 1-8 cpu's, then it is obvious >>not a fair thing to do. > > > >I have no idea what you mean. The speedups _were_ directly calculated from >the times in the log files. That table was put into the paper. Nodes and >times were added much later. Perhaps 2-3 years even. Remember that the game >was played late in 1993 in Indianapolis. I ran the 1-2-4-8 tests during the >next year. So it was essentially finished in 1994. It was published several >years later after significant revisions to shorten it, and a few additions to >add more data. >That's all that happened. The speedups _were_ the critical data that were >calculated directly from log times. I've said it several times. You don't >listen... >> >>The times bob. Not a round off scenario can save you. Not an 'excel >>rounded my times to whole numbers' scenario can save you. >> >>Do these times look like 'rounded off times' to you? Sure not to me: > >I haven't said a thing about rounding times. Someone asked about rounding >off the speedups which certainly happened since they are only given to one >decimel place... > >But no one has suggested _anything_ about rounding the times. As I said, >it is possible that when we computed the node counts, we computed the time, >since the speedups were computed from the raw times, the raw times can be >reconstructed with very little error from the speedups... > > >> >> >>First, times in seconds: >> >>pos 1 2 4 8 16 >>1 2,830 1,415 832 435 311 >>2 2,849 1,424 791 438 274 >>3 3,274 1,637 884 467 239 >>4 2,308 1,154 591 349 208 >>5 1,584 792 440 243 178 >>6 4,294 2,147 1,160 670 452 >>7 1,888 993 524 273 187 >>8 7,275 3,637 1,966 1,039 680 >>9 3,940 1,970 1,094 635 398 >>10 2,431 1,215 639 333 187 >>11 3,062 1,531 827 425 247 >>12 2,518 1,325 662 364 219 >>13 2,131 1,121 560 313 192 >>14 1,871 935 534 296 191 >>15 2,648 1,324 715 378 243 >>16 2,347 1,235 601 321 182 >>17 4,884 2,872 1,878 1,085 814 >>18 646 358 222 124 84 >>19 2,983 1,491 785 426 226 >>20 7,473 3,736 1,916 1,083 530 >>21 3,626 1,813 906 489 237 >>22 2,560 1,347 691 412 264 >>23 2,039 1,019 536 323 206 >>24 2,563 1,281 657 337 178 >> >>But if horrors are not enough. He there are MORE statistical ways to >>review results. amazingly, but true. >> >>anyway. it is bedtime here. tomorrow another output hopefully if the >>excel experts are awake. >> > >I can hardly wait. If you spent as much time working on improving your stuff >as you do trying to discredit everyone else, you'd be far better off... > >But follow the path you think does you the best service...
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.