Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:55:56 09/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 2002 at 16:46:03, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >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 Just to make a quick point. What if the referee or Journal editor was someone as experienced as Jaap van der Heringk? Same argument as before? Just pure speculation: What, if the idea of the rounding came from someone else but not Bob. Just kidding. Or? Rolf Tueschen
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.