Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:53:46 05/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2004 at 15:36:06, Ed Schröder wrote: >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. Yep. I have _every_ issue in my office, from #1 started by Ben Mittman. No such article. The reason I am so sure is that I have _started_ such a paper but it has a long way to go as the parallel search data structures are not that simple to explain and it will take some work and probably a few private reviews before it is sent out for real... > > >>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? >:) Nope. Berliner was also paranoid. But at least he actually did reasonable work, produced useful information, and never made anything up. > >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. I'm not like that. But the University is. They defend faculty vigorously for obvious reasons. > > >>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 pretty "shallow" in fact. :)
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.