Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:37:00 05/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2004 at 02:58:46, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On May 06, 2004 at 16:12:33, Gerd Isenberg wrote: > >>Gian-Carlo, >> >>sorry, but what is your point with such chaotical, none deterministic systems? >>If i imagine the chaotical effects even with one processor after some minor >>code/data changes and different processor architectures. If i imagine how >>chaotical multiprocessor systems are, where memory and cache coherency are big >>issues. >> >>Did you exactly the same test with crafty on the same system as Bob? > >Quad Xeon 550Mhz for me and a Quad Xeon 700Mhz for Bob, same Crafty >version. > >I take offense to Bob claiming he 'disproved' something when his >test didn't come close to that. Maybe Martins did, that's fine, but >certainly not these 4 positions that Bob ran. > >-- >GCP Grow up and read. What I "disproved" with 4 positions was Vincent's statement that "I had _never_ tested null vs non-null for speedup." That was data I had laying around from a quick test when he first claimed it made a _big_ difference. I later ran the entire CB test set with and without as you well know. Why it is important to distort the facts is way beyond me... Martin's test has _nothing_ to do with Vincent's original null-move claim, BTW. It does show that the speedup approximation I have been quoting is within reason, which is all I have been saying. You and Vincent are hung up on a single number. You get 2.8 so 3.0 or 3.1 is "dead wrong" to use Vincent's words, even though there is enough variability to choke a mule. In any case, _I_ understand the issue and it doesn't cause me any grief. I don't have to get the same number each time myself...
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.