Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:29:28 05/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 18, 2004 at 14:07:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 18, 2004 at 13:52:29, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On May 18, 2004 at 13:25:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>So you deny that you wrote speedup = 8.81 in your thesis >>and that you wrote in your DTS article speedup = 11.1 > >Please quote where I denied that. I didn't deny _either_ result... 8.81 != 11.1 and your 11.1 results are based upon data which can be proven as a big fraud. As done by so many in august 2002. See CCC. None of your data supports therefore 11.1 speedup. Only 8.81 is the claim in your thesis. Also you claim that for a depth-first search (see thesis title), so trivially not for anything you ran with at tournaments, because all software using iterative deepening is a depth limited search. This all is very suspicious. >> >>And you deny that when asked why you frauded the numbers in icca journal 1, 1997 >>edition (volume 20), that they were proven in your thesis. >> >>You deny this? > > >I have no idea what you are talking about. The DTS test and my dissertation >tests were wildly different. One had 24 unrelated positions, searched to fixed >depth, on very slow hardware. One had 24 consecutive positions from the same >game, searched to variable depth, on very fast hardware... > >And I didn't "fraud" any numbers whatsover. That is your word. But you are the >fraud expert of course... being the biggest fraud here by orders of magnitude. > > > > >> >>I personally see a substantial difference between 11.1 in a frauded article and >>8.81 in a thesis. > > >So do I. Different test. Run a different way. With pre-loaded hash tables >carried across moves. Etc... BTW the difference is 20%. Of course that is >"substantial" in your small world. Even knowing the two tests were not intended >to be compatible. My dissertation did the same test everyone previous to that >had done, the BK positions. The DTS article tried to answer a _different_ >question, but apparently that subtle difference is lost to your "great" >intellect... > > > > > > >> >>If everything crashed at your harddisk , how can you still post here at ICC >>results from matches crafty - cray blitz? > > >Do you remember anything I have written about this? About the fact that old CB >executables exist in old Cray users group libraries? There used to be plenty of >executables to be found. There may still be executables around if you look hard >enough. But no source. > > > > > >> >>"cray blitz annihilated crafty". >> >>I remember that posting. > > >So do I although again you blew the wording... What you claim I wrote I _never_ >wrote. But that is nothing new is it??? But as far as that match goes, it was >interesting. It was made possible by a friend (who shall remain nameless) >calling and saying "we are shutting our C90 down today. But it won't be moved >until the weekend. Want to try a demo or something as I have an old copy of CB >running on it that I use to test against my program..." > >So I ran for a while, until it became obvious that it was not going to be very >interesting. I'd bet the quad opteron would have come out ahead. But not the >quad xeon I had when I played the match... > >But what does this have to do with anything???
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.