Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 09:37:51 05/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2004 at 12:29:37, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On May 03, 2004 at 12:12:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>The hardware was _identical_ except for CPU speed. > >I'm talking about Vincent's 512 cpu thing versus the Cray >the DTS paper was run on. > >>Totally up to you. The main data was not "calculated in a rather funny and >>backward manner". (the speedup data). > >There is nothing left substantiating the single very most important thing >in the entire paper (the speedups). As it is now, the speedups were set >in stone and all the data that were supposed to support them or allow them >to be calculated is based on them, instead of the reverse. > >For all we know, you determined what looked like reasonable speeups >in advance and invented the 'supporting data' for them. Actually, that >*exactly* how the paper looks without all your storytelling around it. If you had anything to do with science you would know how insulting such a mean phrase looks like. You are hopping from significant null-move to invented data - what do you think is the motif for such misbehavior? > >And you are surprised people are sceptical about it? > >I'm sorry, but as far as scientific results go it is garbage. The >explanation of the principles behind DTS is interesting, though :) > >>The actual speedup calculations are around. > >Would be interesting to see what is left of that. > >-- >GCP
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.