Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:20:27 09/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 2002 at 16:55:56, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 The referees didn't say anything that I recall about the rounding issue. All the prior papers had used 1 decimel place accuracy, so I thought nothing of this. I will note that in looking at my dissertation, the numbers were all done to 2 decimel place accuracy, but that was done right at the end as one of my committee members was a statistician and wanted to get "his input" into the thing. :) It is certainly possible that someone suggested 1 decimel place to make the tables fit the JICCA column width, but I don't recall that being an issue. I might have made the decision myself based on trying to fit things within the guidelines they provided for this..
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.