Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 12:36:06 05/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2004 at 12:12:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 05, 2004 at 10:13:14, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>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? >> >>Anxiously awaiting the volume number so we all can check. >> >>Ed >Just run to the ICCA web site. There is no such paper. It certainly is starting to look that way, if it were true it would have been quoted already by others since half of CCC is a subscriber of the journal. >Do you see why I have a problem with Vincent? :) > >Makes things up. Then claims it is _my_ faulty memory or that I am lying? Even >after I am _sure_ he has tried to find the supposed article since being >challenged about it. But by all means, don't hold your breath until he admits >he made it up. I'd like to continue to play against Rebel for a few more years. > :) >I think the actual person that is either a liar or suffering from some medical >problem is Vincent... Look at it from the bright side, seeing conspiracies on every occasion is not a disease, it's like a bacterium that attacks the victim, that in the end makes the victim more resistant, both need each other, both benefit, feel better now? :) Kidding aside, Vincent should apologize. >This is a case in point. He will _never_ give the citation since there never >was such a paper. He will never produce a quote from a post of mine that says >my approximate speedup formula works for _all_ numbers of CPUs since I have >repeatedly said that it almost certainly will not (almost certainly because >there is no data to prove or disprove it beyond 8 or 16 (very little 16 cpu >data, but greater than zero). Of course he has said that I claimed it worked >for _all_ numbers of processors, here in writing, so he will have to live with >the echo of that for some time. :) > >I really do hope he would make his claims to the University here, however. We >have a good legal staff here (since we are a large medical center also with >almost 20,000 employees and the expected number of lawsuits about medical and >personnel issues). They'd probably enjoy handling something so simple and >straightforward. You are not like that. But one day Vince might meet someone who is determined and make him pay. >Perhaps after losing that he would attempt to throw _me_ out a 10th floor window >as he threatened Omid a while back (I believe it was Omid. The threat was made, >but perhaps a different name). That would be even _more_ fun, IMHO. Golly, only 10th floor? That's not very "Diep" :) Ed
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.