Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:43:16 01/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2003 at 01:01:24, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >On January 14, 2003 at 15:47:55, Luis Smith wrote: > >>On January 14, 2003 at 15:28:37, Bas Hamstra wrote: >> >>>On January 14, 2003 at 15:03:09, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >>> >>>>On January 14, 2003 at 14:57:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>I'm still waiting. Vincent, you claimed "you could easily beat a 1997 program >>>>>on 1997 >>>>>hardware." I have a 1997 program and 1997 hardware waiting for you to prove >>>>>that >>>>>statement on. >>>>> >>>>>I have mentioned this more than once after you made the outrageous claim. You >>>>>have >>>>>_never_ responded. >>>>> >>>>>Is this another case of "I put my foot in my mouth, now I am going to 'go >>>>>silent' and >>>>>hope everyone forgets?" >>>>> >>>>>I don't forget that much... >>>> >>>>Damn it Hyatt let it be. Why does it bother you ? You are not half the player he >>>>is and I believe he can do it. Crafty is not a good blitzer. >>>> >>>>Thanks >>>>Wayne >>> >>>Pffff, sissy. Come on Vincent, the whole CCC (except for some sissies) is >>>waiting! >>> >>>Bas. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Bas. >> >>Why does this sound like a schoolyard fight? How old are both of you? Can you >>not learn to put your differences aside? >> >>Personally I'm ashamed to see _both_ programmers acting like this... >> >>I think even the Nintendo games message boards are a little bit more civil than >>this... >> >>Maybe you should both lower your fists, and your ego's a bit too... >> >>Reguards >>Luis > >Geeze, I found a sensible, sane person. I echo your statements. Infact I have >been telling Dr Bob Hyatt he is conducting himself in very poor taste for a for >a man of his stature. >Dr Bob forget about Vincent !. He isnt harming you is he ? I have said it >before and I repeat my self. You are to be setting an example of conduct and >respect with your position. That is my feeling anyhow. >Thanks >Wayne I'm old enough, and well-known enough, that you can draw conclusions about my behavior with little difficulty. If you think it wrong to challenge someone that makes completely wrong statements every day here, then I suppose that is your opinion. However, it is not my "style" to let false statement after false statement pass. Particularly when many of these "false statements" are directed toward me. I don't see a thing wrong with a "shut up or put up" when a clearly false statement is made, and there is a trivial methodology available to prove the falseness of the statement. A couple of examples: 1. Hyper-threading makes a program go _slower_ not faster. Eugene and I both have access to SMT machines. We both posted results to the contrary. But Vincent, with no SMT machine he can use, directly contradicts both of us. Even saying that no processor with SMT is available. When I have one sitting in my office and have since Thanksgiving. 2. Crafty using two processors is no faster than Crafty using one processor. Eugene (again), myself, and _others_ quickly posted test runs proving this was false. Crafty generally runs about 1.7X faster on two processors over a large set of positions, something _anybody_ can verify. 3. The "smp-lock" stuff in Crafty is killing it's performance. Even though that lock is used two to three thousand times _total_ in a 3 minute search, even though the code protected by that lock takes all of a few microseconds (at absolute worst case) to run one time. Even though the parallel speedup is perfectly reasonable using four and eight threads. Etc. 4. Vincent "killed all 1997 programs." That is false on two fronts. First, he _never_ "killed_ Crafty in 1997. He was lucky to win one game of ten at blitz time controls. He was lucky to win one game of five at long time controls. He played many games. He made excuses each time he lost. But he _still_ lost. I offered him yet another chance to prove this claim and he has refused, although he continues to make the claim. The list goes on. And each time he is wrong. And he is _proven_ wrong. And once he is proven wrong, he disappears, only to pop up in another thread, making another outrageous claim, where he is again called on it and the disappearing act happens again. Over and over. Meanwhile, back at the moderator ranch, the lone ranger, disguised as a pool table, keeps getting his balls racked. We have gotten more requests to ban Vincent than any other _five_ members combined. And we have not done so for reasons that are probably not very clear nor very sound. So now, as Paul Harvey says, "you know the _rest_ of the story." pretty it ain't...
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.