Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:47:58 05/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2004 at 22:24:08, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 19, 2004 at 12:18:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 19, 2004 at 10:29:28, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>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. >> >> >>First, 8.81 came from BK at 5 plies. 11.1 came from a set of game positions at >>10 plies. 8.81 carried nothing from position to position. 11.1 carried > >Your 11.1 comes from nowhere. You invented it yourself. Based upon self invented >speedup numbers you calculated then search time. This is trivial to proof and >has been proven in 2002 august. The only thing that was proven in August 2002 was that you are the biggest idiot in the history of computer chess. You have _never_ proven anything. > >>_everything_ from position to position. The experiments were _different_. I >>posted recent opteron BK positions and even _they_ produced a worse speedup than >>the DTS positions. I could test to 1/2 the depth to see if it gets even worse, >>but I'm pretty certain it would. You don't understand the basic idea that the >>_same_ algorithm can produce _different_ results when important control >>conditions such as search depth or positions used changes. There is little I >>can say to remove your ignorance there... > >>Second, there was no "big fraud". The speedup numbers were computed correctly. > >if you do not call writing down speedup numbers yourself and calculating from >that the search times yourself big fraud, then i am not sure what you call big >fraud. > I hope that you are ready to prove that, should it become "necessary". Note that this has been explained in the past. >Shooting your president? > I call _you_ "a big fraud" if you want to get specific. There's no bigger fraud here. Where is the citation for the JICCA article? Where it the quote saying my speedup formula works for _any_ number of processors? Where is your proof to contradict all the data showing that my speedup numbers are very close to the formula I quote as an approximation? You said "nobody" produces numbers as good as mine. You did notice that someone with a dual G5 produced _better_ numbers than mine? Where is the _exact_ quote where I supposedly said "no program will _ever_ be as good as deep blue?" More lies. More fraud. More dishonesty. More of your specialty, in fact... In short. You are a liar. You are a fraud. And you are dishonest. Can I say more? _should_ I say more? Larry Gatlin once sang a song that mentioned you: "trying to be a hero, ending up a zero, can scar a man forever, right down to his soul..." Looks like you are scarred for life, from my vantage point. No credibility. Known liar. Make statements then run and hide rather than offering proof. Making up things like "your program gets zero speedup on my dual". Lies and lies on top of lies. Busted once again... and it won't be the last time... >>The times were derived from the speedup numbers when someone asked for the >>times. The nodes were _always_ computed from the speedup numbers because I did > >fraud is writing down the speedup numbers yourself and calculating search times >from them. That's what you did. Nope. But that's been discussed before. I computed the speedups from the search times, then later had to reconstruct the search times. Not a big deal. Except to morons. > >>not display node counts in the middle of an iteration for the same reason I >>can't do it in Crafty. But don't let that small fact/detail deter you from you >>basic mission... > >> >> >>> >>>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. > >[smoke curtain removed] Right. "remove" real data and quotes from something that directly disprove all your nonsense. "lookin' good, Vincent". "lookin' _real_ good..." What impresses me the most is that you are not so embarassed that you run and hide _permanently_ rather than having to look people in the eye knowing they know you are a liar and a fraud...
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.