Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:04:20 05/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2004 at 12:51:10, Mike Byrne wrote: >On May 09, 2004 at 08:55:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 09, 2004 at 01:15:06, Dave Gomboc 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. >>>> >>>>I have like 10 programmers here in europe who all are looking forward to seeing >>>>it. >>> >>>Now you're embarrasing yourself, Vincent. Really. This took about 3 seconds to >>>find with a Google search. >>> >>>http://www.umi.com/hp/Support/DServices/order/ >>> >>>Dave >> >> >>Haven't you realized yet that he isn't really interested in getting a copy of my >>dissertation, which is easy enough. He is only interested in producing yet more >>of his patented brand of disinformation. By claiming that it is unavailable, >>whether it is or is not is unimportant. I have used this service several times >>in the past. I have explained how to use it several times. He doesn't really >>want a copy, because he knows that the DTS article provides the same basic >>description. And he knows that my dissertation uses the BK positions which he >>claims are not good tests, being too easy to get a 4.0 speedup on with 4 cpus. >>I found the BK positions were a bit harder in the data logs I posted here last >>week. But real data won't deter him. >> >>He claimed I wrote an article for JICCA that not one single person can find. >>He claimed that I wrote in CCC posts and in that JICCA article that my speedup >>approximation formula worked for any number of processors, where Rolf posted one >>CCC post that directly contradicted him. >> >>He claimed that my speedup formula was wrong, not understanding the concept of >>"linear fit to a non-linear set of data. A bunch of Opteron test data showed >>that the formula was also reasonably close and also that it even underestimates >>the speedup at times due to variability. >> >>Once he saw the data, he switches to claiming that the 1cpu version could be >>faster by 10%, making the data look better than it should. Where 10% came from, >>I can only guess. I would guess the exit of his digestive tract myself, since >>when I first changed Crafty for the SMP stuff I measured that and posted the >>numbers here. >> >>I even modified my data to account for his claim, even though I know that the >>program was not slowed 5%, particularly on the opteron with 8 extra registers. >>He neglected to think about this "claim" as a normal person would do and realize >>that 5% will turn into 5%/3 slowdown with 3 processors. But he neglects to >>think about most of what he writes. >> >>But real data doesn't matter. Only disinformation. He'll never cite the JICCA >>article because it doesn't exist. He'll never provide the exact quote by me >>saying that the speedup formula works for any number of processors because it >>doesn't exist. He'll never admit that my speedup approximation is reasonably >>accurate for 1-8 (or even 1-4) processors because it isn't in his best interest >>to do so even though a ton of data shows that it is so. >> >>There is a trend there... >> >>Just like the claims that his program has the best evaluation. The best search >>The best search. That Hsu's singular extension idea is no good. Only to later >>claim to have it implemented in his current code. >> >>disinformation. _Intentional_ disinformation. >> >>Browse r.g.c.c to find his 1995 nonsense about "Diep is the best correspondence >>engine in the world" and the like. >> >>10 years worth of disinformation. He dislikes me because I have this horrible >>habit of simply running the test and posting the results.. >> >>He claimed that null-move was the reason he couldn't get reasonable speedup >>numbers. That null-move affects the speedup "bigtime". I said "no" after >>running a pretty quick test. He said "you didn't even run a test, you just make >>up an answer and post it." I immediately supplied the sample data. He responds >>"you only used a position or four.." I asked "what test would you like?" He >>said "use the DTS article positions, crafty produces no speedup on my dual using >>those." I ran them on my quad and got 3.0X faster. Null move disabled produced >>a 3.1 speedup. GCP ran the same test with null and got 2.8X. He writes "GCP >>proved that your formula is dead wrong." Also that 3.0 vs 3.1 proved that >>null-move makes parallel search less efficient bigtime. I just didn't realize >>that .1 was "bigtime" I suppose... >> >>This will probably never end... But at least I plan on continuing to provide >>real data to counter all the disinformation. >> >>Big problem is that Vincent doesn't realize how badly he keeps embarassing >>himself... Particularly in light of differences between "real performance" >>versus "claims" as it applies to his wild "claims". > >do search on "Diep is without doubt the strongest chess analysis program" > >it was all proclaimed on his webpage as reported by Bruce Moore -- without any >proof from Vince of course.... > >does get old after a while .... > >"dataless diep" > >notice the absolute proclamation - "without doubt" - when in reality, there was >a world of doubt ..sometings never change ... > > >http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Diep+is+without+doubt+the+strongest+chess+analysis+program%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=32DFD1E9.606C%40nwlink.com&rnum=1 Should be required reading. Posted in 1997. No data ever supplied to support the wild claims. Does that sound familiar??? :)
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.