Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 19:01:47 05/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2004 at 21:37:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 08, 2004 at 21:14:04, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On May 08, 2004 at 21:04:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>You are just flaming as usual. >> >>Show us the outputs of cray blitz. No one beliefs you. Your thesis is unfindable >>too. Show it. > >It is available through University Microfilm. I've told you that previously. I Where must i email to to get a copy of that? Going to alabama myself is a bit far. paying for reproduction costs is no problem. I have like 10 programmers here in europe who all are looking forward to seeing it. >have hard copy. Remember that I once told you all my files were lost??? That >would include _all_ of my files, including the electronic copy of my thesis. >But if you can figure out how to contact university microfilm, they can provide >what you want. > > >> Show the source code of cray blitz. You had a posting previous >>week indicating you have it. > >Show the source of your program... > >I have a printout. 66 lines X 2 columns, front and back. 60,000 lines of >FORTRAN. 22,000 lines of ASM. That is all I have as I have said repeatedly.. I am glad to pay copying costs of those papers. >> >>Yes i can read assembly no problem. Yes i can read fortran code, no problem. >> > >Amazing. You can't seem to read anything else, "no problem". >IE the JICCA. Apparently you read an article I never wrote. CCC. Apparently >you read a post I never made. > >So you can "read no problem"? I think you have _big_ problems myself... > > > > > >>You know i'm not a beginner in parallel search, i can see from your code already >>how well it would parallel work. > >Ah yes. You hit the nail right on the head with Crafty didn't you? No speedup >on a dual. Terrible speedup on a quad. Etc. So I am sure you "can see from >my code how well it would work." I am _way_ more experienced than you at >parallel search and _I_ won't claim to be able to do that... (look at someone's >code and accurately predict speedups.) Neither can _you_... > > > > > > >> >>A year ago you posted you didn't have it. Now you post again you have it. > > >I posted, but you seem to be unable to grasp the concept. I have a printout. I >have _no_ source files. You can find that posted several times with the CCC >search engine if you want... You _know_ that. Just more of your patented brand >of dishonesty... > >So quit wasting time making up things I supposedly wrote but didn't, and spend >more time reading what I actually wrote. Your idiocy index will drop >markedly... > > > > >> >>In short. Show the cray blitz source code. >> >>We have waited long enough for it. > > > >Show the JICCA article citation you raved on and on about in _several_ posts. > >Show the quote where I claimed that my speedup formula was good for any number >of processors. > >Show data to contradict the 18 opteron log files producing speedups reasonably >close to what my linear formula predicts. > >Show data to show that Crafty can't run effectively on NUMA boxes when it >appears to be doing just fine on the NUMA opteron. > >Show data to prove that Crafty is 10% slower because of the tree pointer. > >Show data to show how efficient _your_ parallel search. > >Show _anything_ in fact. You never do. > >Except of course you show lies. Fabrications. Nonesense. Dishonesty. > >You are good at showing those... > >I've shown _you_ all I intend to show. > >Now it's your turn to show me proof of some of the stupid claims you have made. > >Or it is your turn to once again run, switch subject, or hide, since you can't >stand real data...
This page took 0.01 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.