Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:38:15 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2002 at 14:17:59, Sune Fischer wrote: >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. > (a) was the course I took in my dissertation, but I had a 30 processor sequent that was basically "mine" for several months so running thousands of tests was not impossible. However, doesn't that leave the data open to the same criticism as the data in my dts JICCA article? (that the data is not "raw")?? Because it will be an average, and that will make it look artificial... So back we go again? I've always used "averages" but for the DTS paper it was simply impossible. You might Call someone up like say "united computing" in texas and ask what they would have charged for a few months time on a dedicated C90. :) >>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.