Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:35:02 09/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 2002 at 18:20:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. :) In that case you could use the 2 decimel numbers to claculate better estimate for the times relative to the published time. I wonder what is the reason that it was not done. Uri
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.