Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:39:12 05/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2004 at 22:22:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 08, 2004 at 22:19:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 08, 2004 at 22:01:47, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>Do you have a web browser? Use it. University Microfilm has _nothing_ to do >>with UAB, Alabama or any other university. It is a service most universities >>use to archive dissertations and theses... >> >>> >>>I have like 10 programmers here in europe who all are looking forward to seeing >>>it. >> >>Apparently not very interested. Or else any one of them would have discovered >>exactly how to obtain a copy... >> >> >>> >>>>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. >> >>Pay whatever you want. You get no more information from me... >> >>At least not until you clear up all the misinformation you have posted here, by >>answering the questions you pretend to not see below... > >I asked you already asked you years ago how to get a hard copy of that. > >Each time you just use excuses... ...excuses and excuses. > >Well i know the truth about you. See my post from august 2002. I know the truth about you. A chronic liar. I've had _one_ excuse for several years, namely that all my files were lost. Several years before your "DTS explosion". There were plenty of mentions of losing everything prior to your self-induced fiasco. And I have repeatedly told you that I have a hard copy of a couple of older versions of Cray Blitz. And I have repeatedly told you I will not give them to you nor copy them. Why on earth would I want to help someone like yourself get better??? See my posts of this week and your _complete_ refusal to answer any of the questions and prove your statements. I'm not impressed by a liar, personally... You can ask for hard copy all you want. You'll get exactly the same as what I got when I asked for (1) a citation for the paper I wrote on Crafty's parallel search and published in the JICCA. (there is no such paper). (2) a reference or link to any post in CCC or anywhere else where I claimed my simple linear speedup formula works for any number of CPUs. Or even any number > 16 which is as far as I have personally test. (there is no such post) (3) any data to support your "Crafty sucks on NUMA but the (NUMA) opteron is a good architecture that produces better speedups than Intel" foolishness. (there is data to the contrary on my ftp machine). (4) any data to support your claim that removing the tree pointer would speed Crafty up by 10%. Which is interesting because you _can_ find old CCC posts where I explicitly gave data showing it was < 5% when I first released version 15.0 running on my quad pentium pro 200. (there is data to the contrary in old CCC posts). (5) any data to support any of your "Diep's speedup is of course better than others..." (I doubt such data exists at all). (6) any data to support any of your wild claims about "your eval contains more knowledge" or "your search makes no tactical mistakes" and other such nonsense. (ditto). (7) any data to support the many statements about how commercial programmers are doing things, never having seen their code... (ditto) (8) any data of any kind whatsoever, in fact, rather than your ridiculous hand-waving and switching the subject or running and hiding. I'm going to keep asking until you answer or retract... Your choice... I have plenty of time... Now run and hide until the next time... >> >>> >>>>> >>>>>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 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.