Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:06:23 05/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2004 at 20:00:07, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 06, 2004 at 19:00:07, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On May 06, 2004 at 12:26:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On May 05, 2004 at 23:04:20, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>> >>>>On May 05, 2004 at 21:31:44, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>Let me make a contract real soon. You'll have it before sunday. >>>>> >>>>>I doubt though we'll ever see a signature of you there. >>>> >>>>I don't see the need to involve money. The programs aren't going to be >>>>motivated to play better because money is on the line! Why not just play a set >>>>of games on ICC? >>>> >>>>Dave >>> >>[snip] >>>This you want to see play against some program where in eval and search (not >>>counting parallel search where nalimov seems to have done some effort) the last >>>few years a few bytes per so many months change and which never impressed in >>>world champs either, losing in fact in 2000 in the 100% same way like in >>>Jakarta. >>> >>>No one cares if i beat crafty. >> >>You're challenging Bob for Diep vs. Crafty -- doesn't this mean that you care? >>I mean, it's not a big deal to me! >> >>What I do care about is the confusion of sport with gambling. >> >>Dave > >The garantuee i give you is that i never gamble any of my money on other engines >than diep. > >Now ask kasparov :) Your guarantees are absolutely worthless. where is the JICCA citation for the article you claimed I wrote. Multiple times. Where is the quote showing that I claimed my speedup formula worked for any number of processors, when every example I have seen always includes "this works for 4 and 8 processors. Beyond that I have not had a chance to test it (yet)." Where are your comments about "your 3.1 is dead wrong and I proofed it." after seeing the multiple opteron runs. Where are your explanations for (a) opteron is a better SMP platform than Intel and (b) Crafty sucks at NUMA, when the opteron _is_ NUMA so both can't be true. Where is your data supporting your claim that my TREE pointer slows the 1-cpu version down 10%? Where is your credibility? Same place as your honesty and data? "around the bowl and down the hole"? This isn't going away. I had no real way to prove that my speedup numbers for the DTS paper were real because the logs were lost years ago. But I do have a way to prove I wrote no JICCA paper about the crafty parallel search (yet). And that I never said "my speedup formula works for any number of processors." I even gave you a chance to escape by saying you were wrong. You ran and hid. You've been busted... And it isn't going away anytime soon. Get used to the question being asked until you respond and answer... Of course you _can_ contine to run, switch and hide. Your credibility can't go any lower... So you can't hurt yourself further... You can make it better by either providing what I have asked, or retracting all the false statements you have made here. What is _really_ amusing is that you _continued_ to make them after you _knew_ there was no JICCA article about Crafty's parallel search. That shows _true_ dishonesty. Is that to be your legacy???
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.