Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:59:20 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2002 at 07:18:23, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On September 05, 2002 at 21:42:20, martin fierz wrote: > >>On September 05, 2002 at 20:54:16, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>>On September 05, 2002 at 20:06:36, martin fierz wrote: >>> >>>>On September 05, 2002 at 19:08:54, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 05, 2002 at 18:09:44, martin fierz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 05, 2002 at 17:09:44, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On September 05, 2002 at 16:43:16, martin fierz 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? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>of course he had a choice! when a referee asks you for something more than what >>>>>>>>you have in your paper, you can either comply, and produce that data, or you can >>>>>>>>try to convince him that it's not important. even if you fail to convince the >>>>>>>>referee, the editor of the journal has the last word about publication, and if >>>>>>>>your paper is really good (it is), then you can also survive a hostile referee. >>>>>>>>bob should either have rerun his tests and saved his logs to produce real data, >>>>>>>>or he should have convinced the referee that this data is unnecessary (it is!), >>>>>>>>and if that failed, he should have admitted to the journal editor that he did >>>>>>>>not have the raw data any more, and asked him to publish it all the same. >>>>>>>>making up data (to please a referee or for other reasons) and passing it on as >>>>>>>>actual data is probably the biggest no-no of all in science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>"Making up data" is too strong here. The times and nodes are functions of the >>>>>>>speedup. Deriving them from this function is not "making up" data, it's >>>>>>>calculating the data from a known function. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Is this not standard practice, especially under the circumstances described >>>>>>>above? >>>>>> >>>>>>making up data is not too strong. of course the numbers in the table are very >>>>>>close to what bob actually measured. but the table says: "this is the time in >>>>>>seconds that the program needed on this position" - and the numbers in the table >>>>>>are not what it says. even if it is very close to the truth, it is still made >>>>>>up. this is definitely NOT standard practice - under no circumstances do you >>>>>>EVER make up data. even if it is very close to the true data.... >>>>> >>>>>To say that the times were "made up" is to say that the speedups were "made up", >>>>>since the times were derived directly from the speedups. >>>>> >>>>>You are saying the speedups are "made up". >>>> >>>>you don't understand... >>> >>>I understand perfectly. I'm just saying that polemically, you are contradicting >>>yourself when you say it. If B was derived via repeatable function from A, then >>>to say B is made up is really saying A was made up. Because B cannot be made up >>>if it was calculated. B can only be made up if A is made up. >> >>the problem is that you have measured A, and the function with which you >>computed B only goes from A->B and not back. well, it goes back, but it >>introduces errors... if you could really go back from B->A i would not make this >>fuss,... > >Fuss is correct here! > >1. Matthew gave his verdict about V. from the business corner and I'm convinced >now, my argument of the "young ones" is wrong! I say this also under the >impression of my actual reading of Robert Reich's book "The Future of Success". >He's saying that all the old values (say responsibility, loyality, experience, >fairness etc) are no longer existing in new economy. The individual is >responsible for himself. We go for the direct profit/ advantage and therefore we >leave jobs as well as we're fired, there are no bonds whatsoever. In German we >were saying in such cases, he will also sell his own Gran'ma if he sees certain >advantages afterwards... Reich is saying that the reason for this change is that >the costs for a different (I call it ethics) behaviour are too high and the best >should be, if we participated with the 'international capital'. Reich also >reported real cases of damages, but he shows that "nobody" could be made >responsible. Wait a minute I cried while reading. Because it gave us more >"shareholders values" or profit, we forget about responsibility although we >could all be victims of such a nonsense tomorrow? Uhh, I forgot to mention that >Reich also explains why experience of the elder is no longer a real value. Since >economy needs the young in their 20s for about 6 years after their examens, the >age when they are the most creatrive, experience with declining creativity has >no value at all. Gimmi break, I cried! I'm that stupid to defend "young and >possibly creative" Vincent against Bob, the man who went through all that with >much more creativity than V. and only because V. is young he should get away >with such outrageous slander? No! I take Reich and say that V. has violated his >responsibility for himself and see him guilty and forget him and his short >creativity. I'm not stupid! If my experience no longer counts, then why should I >bring questions of ethics into play? Did V.make a gross mistake when he accused >Bob of lies, fake and mass fraud? Of course! And such a V. would ruin whole >industries and also many victims, you might just consult Reich and the modern >philosophy of international money. Not!! Reich is a crook, he's the devil or >what ever. He's a writer with no ethics. And we experienced but "less creative" >people should fight back. V. simply showed that he's too stupid to be able to >learn the necessary basics of science in a short period of time (with almost 30 >he's much too old and less creative now, his timne is over) and he will never >recover from the terrible devastations this has on his mind. I'm only acting in >self-defence! Perhaps I'm exaggerating a bit? > >2. Comes Martin from "science". He's saying that "making-up" data is the worst >you could do in science. After a short exchange with Matthew he's crawling back >to the position that the representation of a diagram with "calculated data" >without the exact mentioning of the detail of the calculation is blabla, but >since he knows that the basic data is not made up he can live with it. Also the >Greek intermezzo gave him the necessary relief! >I'm in a zwick. Should I cry or should I laugh. Is Martin a famous scientist or >is he _studying_ science? His example with the falling stone reminds me of my >first semester in physics when teacher explained why we should make exact >documents of what we measured even if we _knew_ that this was nonsense after the >comma. But here we should be taught in basics of science. So we wrote 1,993 >instead of 2 meters what we knew was the exACT distance. NB I'm not remembering >the exact numbers, so nobody please laugh about this 1,993. Perhaps it was only >about 2 decis after comma. Martin is arguing with such basics and said that what >Bob did was absolutely inacceptable. In the meantime this has changed. So now >the diagram. But here Bob has said that all exact description had to be >shortened in this JICCA article. Martin in his role as Inspector says that also >a small sloppiness might become a real plague sometimes in future. In special if >we are talking about Bob who's in his 20's and who has a career bevor him. Of >course it is the other way round. V. and his aids are possibly in their 20's and >surely not deep in their science, this can be presumed from the usual time a >scientist could sac for NGs. > >I can't help, nobody has shown where Bob had violated the rules of science. His >measurements are out of critic, now a diagram should be the crucial point. >Perhaps people have misunderstood the debate in CTF about the German nano >scientist who's accused of making up his results/ presentation. Here nothing has >been made up. And we have a case where V. slandered Bob. And where Martin >explains how we should carefully measure a falling stone. Well, it seems, as if >the picture of Sysiphus is appropriate, only he never fell back and was hurt >under the 'rolling stone'... No, folks, this is all very ugly. To insinuate as >if Bob had, admitted in very low dosis, violated the laws of science, is the >same slander as before. For a single reason. Because Bob's results are still >standing five, what did I say?, 10 years after the event. So he didn't cheat at >all. > >That result of the long and lively debate should be remembered: There is a >little error in the presentation, but the basic data is ok and was surely not >made up! Now please, you all may send Bob your regrets. > >Rolf Tueschen > There is no need to send me any regrets. I've been thru this once before with Berliner and the protest right after the 1986 WCCC event. But fortunately, there we had the program executable we used in the event, we got access to an identical machine, and let David Levy sit down and (with Harry's help) play thru the game and verify that the protested moves were actually played by Cray Blitz as our log files had said. I was a bit worried, of course, as you can see how things vary, and it is always possible we got a "real good case" in the game, but couldn't reproduce it again in the validation. Luckily, nothing like that happened. Here it is a bit different, as the data would be impossible to reproduce with no such old Cray available and the program lost in a disk crash. However, with him making the same sort of claims about Crafty, I can at least show that the Crafty stuff he was saying is nonsense, which would hopefully carry over to the other data where validation is impossible. The point of the 4 runs last nite was two-fold: 1. Vincent says I base my 1.7 speedup claim on _one_ position. Yet he knows full well I had emailed him logs of these same 24 positions. GCP also ran them on slower hardware (my machine also). His speedup was 2.8 using 4 cpus. Mine was 3.0... Vincent quoted 2.8 as "the" number although he had the 3.0 data as confirmed by an email I have to the "group" showing the two attachments (1cpu and 4cpu log files). That is simple dishonesty. 2. I wanted to show Martin how volatile the speedup data is, and why accuracy to 2 places is really not showing any more information than accuracy to one. Not that showing 2 is bad, but just compare the second digit among the same position, different runs... to get a feel for what I mean. I've run this kind of analysis and posted it before, I plan on at least going to 4 cpus and running/posting another table. Only draw back is that my normal "log eater" won't eat these and produce anything useful, because it becomes a matter of matching the 1cpu move to the 4cpu move/time, which is harder.. .
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.