Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:57:09 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2002 at 09:11:07, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >Committing fraud, even falsifying (and not even remembering it >for christ sake) the 2 most important tables > - total node counts > - time table Your terminology is out of order. But I won't play coach again. All I can say is that your understanding of the basic fundaments in science is very weak. Falsifying at least is not what you could ever prove for these tables. Let me make a sarcastic comment. You are sinking deeper and deeper into the moor... If you only could see that alone you'd never could come out of it. If you only could pause and say, well, then just give me a straight explanation for what I see, because I have no idea why something like that could happen. Then it could be much easier. But now you are headlessly searching for always new variations of the same accusation. And the irony is that the accusation is false! Did you mumble the word? Ok, I'll try it a last time. > >This in an official article, which is one of the things you have to >try to do as a professor. JICCA is the journal of a private association. Official for CC but not official in the sense that a member of a university had to fear something. In this case I think the journal itself had more interest in the paper than Bob needed it for his career. And keep in your memory that Bob's findings are by no means hurt by your table question. The reason why it seems so difficult for you to understand that is exactly the lack I described in your 'basics'. Vincent, you simply can't judge here what is most important, important, less important and completely uninteresting. To show you a difference. As you know I accused the DB2 team of unscientific behaviour to Kasparov, who was their client so to speak. Such a "pressure" put on your client will always hurt your results. So, normally you do your best to keep a good relationship with all your clients. This is so basic, that even in the contract with IBM, scientists should always secure this, if for instance IBM had tried to urge them somehow. Then they should have said, that this way the whole event would be destroyed. Hence after game two the whole event was heavily biased. Of course from a limited (not very scientifical) standpoint of the factual the result is a win for DB2. And that is how it's seen among laymen. Here we have a completely different question. If you only could show that the numbers Bob reported were completely out of range, then you had a good argument. But here the stories behind the publication, the loss of the original data and the callings from the journal itself let Bob make a little mistake. But not a mistake which meant anything false or contrary to the original results. Can you understand that? Ask further questions. >So you show falsified results to the other >scientists about your data. No. He didn't change the results but presented them. But the presentation was not cheating the scientists or you! If you had understood what Bob had told you by email and ICC conversation! How can you be so stubborn to realise the possibility of misunderstanding on your side. > >If the only way of getting the tables is by inventing numbers yourself, >then do not give the tables. But the found results were the core or the main cause of the interest of the JOurnal! > >A result from the time table IS the speedup number, and not vice versa >as you post here. You do not get a speedup number from heaven. > >You CALCULATE it based upon the search times. > >Automatic processes sometimes round off numbers, that is not the >case here. So the conclusion is very obvious. I'm sure you'll get in detail answers on the technology questions, but I can only hope that you can understand the different levels of importance. But a fast understanding is required. You are very redundant actually. Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0.01 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.