Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 12:08:35 01/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2003 at 09:43:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. >>>>>> Okey Dokey, you made your case very clear. I have read all of those items. Thank you Wayne >>>>>>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.