Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:27:04 05/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2004 at 07:53:14, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 04, 2004 at 11:49:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I asked for a specific citation for "the JICCA paper" you claimed I wrote and >>gave the speedup = 1 + (NCPUS -1) * .7; formula, and also where I claimed it was >>good for _any number_ of cpus. >> >>I know that (a) I didn't write any paper on the Crafty algorithm yet; (b) that > >YOU DENY THAT YOU WROTE A PAPER PUBLISHED IN ICGA/ICCA ABOUT CRAFTY WHERE YOU >CLAIM A 1 + 0.7 (N-1) SPEEDUP? Yep. Please give the citation. Your statement is simply a lie, or else I wrote a paper that I have omitted from all of my annual activity reports that I have to supply yearly. Only two parallel papers I have had in JICCA in last 10 years were the DTS article and the lockless hashing paper. Other papers on learning, etc but nothing about the Crafty parallel search algorithm. > >>I have _always_ said that my formula is an approximation that works with up to 8 >>processors. > >it says N for N processors and some posts from you a few years ago indicated it >also worked for N=16. I said that for a _small_ test it worked on a 16 CPU SMP alpha-based machine I tested on for a very short time. I _have_ said that it works for 2-8 processors as I have tested on those quite extensively. I have _never_ said "for all numbers of processors" as you claimed. Another lie. > >>Anything beyond that is your imagination.. >>Time to admit it. > >It has been proven not to be working for n=4 even. > Not by me... >>The CCC search engine is available for you to hunt for posts where I claimed >>that after you verify there was no JICCA paper whatsoever. >>I've called you a liar. >>Disprove it or run as you always do... > >You publish an OFFICIAL paper in the journal of icga and now you claim you >didn't write it. It's time to use some of the posts you do here to proof to your >government you deny your own papers (about crafty) and commit fraud (in the dts >paper) as a professor. > Feel free to attempt to do so. But if you want to claim to them that I wrote a paper you can't find, better "look out"... That's all the warning I will give. Go for it... >>You like to use the "fraud" word. I think it is _obvious_ who is the "fraud" >>here... Of course you can prove your statement and make me out the fraud again. >> >>Your move. Clock is ticking.
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.