Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:25:18 05/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 18, 2004 at 12:34:31, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 18, 2004 at 11:44:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >Yes, you can't afford to leave USA 1 day, but you can afford $15k+ machines >always. I don't own a single 15K machine, period. I own one sony laptop, one gateway PC in my home. And you talk about "selective math". In your case it is "non-math" as every number you puke up is utter nonsense. Where is the opportunity to "leave the USA 1 day"? Or is your math such that 2 weeks is the same as one day? That's what I thought. More utter nonsense made up on the spur of the moment, which makes you look like a moron once again.. > >Also you always have all statistics , data and articles at hand. I have everything since the disk crash. I have nothing from before that, except for what I have in hard-copy. Old news. I also have hardly any old copies of Crafty. Those I have were sent to me by folks that saved them. I have no copies of Cray Blitz except for printed listings. I only have those because the old ICCA rules required participants to bring a listing in case of some sort of suspicion about authorship or whatever. > >However anything about cray blitz has dissappeared. > >Except that in your thesis you claim a 8.81 speedup for it and in your frauded >1997 article you claim a speedup way above it. So? Different tests. My dissertation was run using the BK positions searched to a depth of _five_ plies I believe (I will look when I get back to my office) on a machine that could not search 100 nodes per second on one cpu. The DTS positions were searched much deeper, at 500K nodes per second, and they were related greatly assisting move ordering. Can't comprehend the difference??? Or, perhaps, you don't _want_ to comprehend the difference? Doesn't matter. Either way you are still a fraud. > >Further your average speedup at 2 processors is 2.02. So? We've seen ridiculous speedup for a small set of problems posted here many times. Pick the right group from the DTS paper as run on the opteron and you can get _way_ over 2.5 speedup. But not for a significant number of positions on average... And I don't recall any 2.02 speedup since all my numbers are to 1 decimel place... > >Now i have no problems with a 2.02 speedup, but you have yourself if i may quote >some old postings of you here... No, I have problems with _your_ claiming that you could _always_ get > 2.0. I have _never_ claimed either that (a) I could produce super-linear speedup over a large set of positions; or that (b) I could not produce any super-linear speedup on single positions or small sets of positions. Of course, you can feel free to quote _any_ text where I have said otherwise. Just like you could post any text where I claimed that my general speedup formula for Crafty works for any number of processors. Or cite the JICCA article I wrote about the crafty parallel search. You lie, and you lie. That is _all_ you do... > >You posted that my move ordering sucked ass (or something like that), this where >diep uses less nodes a ply than crafty (despite diep using checks in qsearch). Please quote the exact post. I don't _ever_ write "your move ordering sucked ass". I did write "if you _consistently_ produce super-linear speedups your move ordering is bad. That is easy to prove with theory. My super-linear speedups on certain positions is caused by the _same_ thing. > >So everything you still remember except what your career is based upon. My career is not based on the DTS paper. My career is based on 35+ years of computer chess work. 35+ years of teaching in a university. 35+ years of writing papers, doing research (both related to chess and not related to chess). Etc. What about you? Yours, on the other hand seems to be based on _nothing_. But that is your problem, not mine... > >You remember every insignificant thing in short... I thought you have posted _repeatedly_ that my memory is no good. "what a wicked web we weave when first we practice to deceive". What that means is that the more you lie, the more mistakes you make and the easier it is for everyone to see your lies. You are exposed. _badly_. On one day I have a bad memory. On the next day I remember every detail. In short, you are a plain and simple liar and only write what suits you, not the truth. Still waiting on that article citation. Or the quote about my speedup. Of course there was your "everybody but hyatt gets worse speedups than his formula predicts". But then several post results here that are _better_ than my formula. There was your "I have proofed your 1.7 and 3.1 are lies." Shot down in flames multiple times. My data. Data posted by others. Your lies. You are a fraud and a liar... Prove me wrong... Or, as usual, "run and hide". I expect the latter rather than the former...
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.