Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:44:46 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2002 at 13:45:44, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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... > Are you _really_ that dense? Or just pretending? How could I calculate the times, to then calculate the speedups, to then calculate the times again? The speedups came from raw data. _period_. The times/nodes were derived from the speedups later. >COMON > >Grow up. good advice. Try following it. > >>> >>>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.