Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 13:46:03 09/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 2002 at 13:43:10, Matthew Hull wrote: >On September 05, 2002 at 13:28:20, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >>On September 05, 2002 at 10:05:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On September 05, 2002 at 00:25:58, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >>> >>>>On September 04, 2002 at 18:38:17, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>My take on the matter (in one paragraph): >>>>>Robert wrote a paper on parallel speedup, showing a 1.7 increase for 2 CPU's (as >>>>>derived from his more general formula). Vincent was unable to reproduce this >>>>>sort of speedup, and thought the research was faulty. Robert agreed that the >>>>>test set was limited and you won't always get that sort of speedup, but as an >>>>>average (over a broad set of positions) that's about what he got. There has >>>>>been some acrimony over whether superlinear speedups are possible. I think that >>>>>the jury is still out on that one. >>>>> >>>>>At any rate, that's my take on the whole thing. >>>>> >>>>>Vincent always sees things in pure, jet black or gleaming, powder white. If >>>>>something isn't terrific, then it is pure junk. While I think his mode of >>>>>interesting is a bit odd, it's one of the things that make Vincent interesting. >>>> >>>>He crossed the line when he used the word "fraud" and "lie" >>>>to describe a scientific paper without any solid proof (he only proved a flaw in >>>>the presentation). Too serious. >>>> >>>>To be honest, I am embarrassed to be reading this thread. One side does not >>>>recognize a flaw (it could be honest and I believe it, happens many times, big >>>>deal) and the other makes pathetic accusations of fraud mixing it up with old >>>>issues (Deep blue etc.). To top it all, ad hominem attacks. >>>> >>>>In this conditions it is impossible to discuss anything. >>> >>>While I understand what you mean, I don't see any major "flaw". >> >>No, it is not major, it is a very minor flaw in the presentation. Not a big >>deal, but you cannot stand there and say that it is just ok. You cannot say that >>it is ok the way you rounded it and everything is justified by the big >>variability. The only thing that the big variability shows is that the flaw is >>minor, but it does not show that there is no flaw in the presentation. In those >>cases standard deviations should be shown using numbers that were rounded >>properly. >> >>Don't get me wrong, I understand and accept completely everything you say, if I >>were accused of fraud I would go overboard myself. But please, do not try to >>convince us that those tables are the proper way to present something. > >Under the circumstances, I don't think he had a choice. It was the only way to >add the data so long after the fact at the request of the referees. Was he >supposed to say in the paper that the refs wanted the data so I was forced to >extrapolate it? What would you have done in that situation? What I would or I would not is irrelevant. We are humans and make mistakes. Reviewers are human too. The point is that 10 years later I do not think I will try to convince myself and everybody that everything is pretty. Anyway, rounding the way it was done was not required by the reviewers. Methodology has to be explained thoroughly, if data was extrapolated, it should be explained with details, how and why. Reviewers should have requested standard deviations and not the ridiculous table with the nodes. Reviewers many times ask things that are not really important and you just obey to finish the process as soon as possible. Sometimes you can fight it and they listen. Regards, Miguel
This page took 0.02 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.