Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:07:53 09/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 2002 at 18:35:02, Uri Blass wrote: >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 That one is easy. The "log eater" was written to eat 5 log files and compute the raw speedup numbers. It printed them out to one decimel place. When we later added the nodes (and apparently times too) we used those raw speedup numbers which were all we had... so we were stuck with the .x accuracy because the speedups were simply re-typed by hand from the single paper itself... IE yes, while we were actually calculating the speedups, we obviously had more "accuracy" (if you really want to call it that). But that accuracy was reduced to 1 dec. place at output, and then that is all we had later when we started extrapolation.
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.