Author: Andreas Guettinger
Date: 08:45:50 09/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 2002 at 10:39:10, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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? > Hm, I think reconstructed is not the same as *faked*. It's a simple reverse calculation process. If you measure the distance a machine travels and the time it needs to do so and you make a table with the average velocity the machine had by calculating d/t the v data is not called faked. Also if you want to add the distance in the table later but you have lost your original distance measurements you can get them by multiplying the times with the velocity. You end up with the *original* values that are not *faked*. Certainly not much rounding should be performed else the data you get is not very exact. - Andy
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.