Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:53:23 05/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2004 at 13:35:38, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 03, 2004 at 11:05:25, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>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 ;-) >> >>For the default version it is 2.8 and that's far away from 3.1. >> >>10% is not 'a little bit'. In computerchess people like Frans Morsch work an >>entire year for 0.5%. > > >I do not believe you. >People who work an entire year for 0.5% get less than 1 elo improvement in a >year. > >Fransh morsch gets more than it so he must do something better than that. > >Uri We need a new word. hyperbolized hyperbole. That says it all. Anyone that works for a year to get .5% is an absolute idiot...
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.