Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:34:39 05/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2004 at 09:20:51, martin fierz wrote: >On May 03, 2004 at 02:14:53, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On May 02, 2004 at 18:49:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On May 02, 2004 at 18:23:44, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On May 02, 2004 at 13:12:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>He sent me an email trying to justify his poor performance. He first claimed >>>>>that it was an artifact of null-move. Testing disproved that. >>>> >>>>What testing? >>>> >>>>-- >>>>GCP >>> >>> >>>The testing you and I both did. It showed a minimal speedup difference if you >>>recall. 2.8 vs 3.1... not _that_ significant... >> >>2.8 for with nullmove >>3.0 for without nullmove >> >>A major difference. based upon 30+ positions. >> >>And both not *close* to speedup(n) = 1.0 + 0.7(n-1) > >i know nothing about this thread, i know nothing about multiprocessing, but i do >know that the above formula gives 3.1 for n=4. >i don't know about you, but i consider both 2.8 and 3.0 to be "close" to 3.1 - >as a physicist, i tend to think of numbers within 10% as equal ;-) > >cheers > martin I had the same innocent view but then we still have Gian-Carlo who claimed that he had PROVEN the significance of the differences. I'm still waiting for his reply to my challenge, very innocent challenge, that he should explain his stats step by step. Perhaps then we can both tell him what is wrong. - But aside all this, it's extremely disturbing to see such nonsense with the combined accusation against Bob. Of course Bob knows what artefacts means. But does the two heroes know it too?
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.