Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 10:45:44 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 2002 at 12:00:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 05, 2002 at 11:16:35, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On September 05, 2002 at 11:01:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>Your article does mention something else. it mensions see >>text as also produced here. It says *nothing* on pondering. >> >>It is your word here which says it. And i don't believe your >>word at all. You also said in a conversation as shown here >>that the search times were accurate and the real search times >>for all testoutputs, which by now is obviously a lie. > >A lie to you. A "mistake" to me. The only data I _ever_ thought about >in the DTS article was the speedup data, and I knew _exactly_ where it came >from. Sure, I was wrong about the times/nodes. I should have remembered the >nodes when I pointed out your silly error with Crafty's node counts so many >times in email to you. But I didn't. > >However, the email describes the "driver" program. And you had that email >a month ago. There were others way earlier also when you first started asking >me about dts when you were starting on a parallel search. So you _knew_ it >was pondering. Because I told you so. > >In the JICCA, the original article was 25+ pages. The first order from the >referees was "make it shorter". And the second and third pass were the same. >I probably deleted things that would be better left in, but in order to meet >the requirements of the journal, I simply shortened whatever the referees said >to shorten. > >If you ever publish something, you will run into the same thing. Always >"make it shorter". or "accept this paper, but it needs to be rewritten and >significantly shortened." > >Common... > > > > >> >>The whole article is a big lie with regard to the outputs >>simply. Your cray blitz thing has an unknown speedup simply. > >Your words, not mine. I say the speedups are as displayed. Because >I know where the data came from. If you don't like the extrapolated >times and nodes, that's ok. But the speedups are raw. So we must trust you on your statement that the speedup was like that, despite that all other data is falsified which is then used to calculate the speedup... COMON Grow up. >> >>The fact that the speedup which is claimed is 2.0 though you >>say it is impossible to get > 2.0, whereas it is easy >>to show proof it is possible to get > 2.0, but not a single >>speedup of yours is > 2.0, because you of course couldn't >>imagine it either before you wrote the article, that says >>enough. > >Good "proof"... :) > >I don't get many speedups > 2, as I said. I get a few, but when I do, >I also get more that are < 2, which is _demanded_ by logic of course. >But don't let me stop you from showing a rigorous mathematical proof that >you can get >2.0 over _all_ positions you search. Or even over the majority >of the positions you search. I'm anxiously waiting for that. > >Oh yes, and "because it is true" is _not_ a proof...
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.