Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 11:17:59 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2002 at 11:53:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I have posted the raw data logs, the "cooked data" that I extracted from the >logs, and the speedup tables (those for Martin last nite). It might be >interesting to take the cb.c program I also posted and change the speedup >format to show 3 decimel places (I used 2 as Martin had suggested that would >be better.) > >It would be interesting to run the program with 1, 2 and 3 decimel place >accuracy, and let everyone look at the three tables and decide which one >_really_ provides the most useful information. I'll bet everyone likes >.1 better than .11 because is .01 really significant? Or is it just random >noise? To a numerical scientist (as I'm sure you know) the numbers 1.8 and 1.80 are not identical, 1.80 is ten times more accurate, and that is a powerful statement in itself. To produce such a number you need to (a) run a larger experiment and do some statistics to get an average or (b) get some better and probably a lot more expensive equipment (higher resolution mass-spectrometers, or whatever the situation may call for), though in this case (a) seems like the only option. >I will let someone else run this as I have supplied the raw data and program >on my ftp machine. that way I can't be accused of biasing the results in any >way. :) That's all you can do, people should be able to reproduce the results under the same circumstances. -S.
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.