Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 09:13:09 05/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2004 at 22:41:23, enrico carrisco wrote: >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. > >Okay. If it is so trivial -- please "re-prove" it. I missed this August 2002 >discussion of proof. I would, however, be interested in seeing the proof >(rather than more threads of rants, raves, and name calling...) pos 2 4 8 16 1 2.0000 3.40 6.50 9.09 2 2.00 3.60 6.50 10.39 3 2.0000 3.70 7.01 13.69 4 2.0000 3.90 6.61 11.09 5 2.0000 3.6000 6.51 8.98876 6 2.0000 3.70 6.40 9.50000 7 1.90 3.60 6.91 10.096 8 2.000 3.700 7.00 10.6985 9 2.0000 3.60 6.20 9.8994975 = 9.90 10 2.000 3.80 7.300 13.000000000000000 and so on for all positions That is the speedup from Hyatt if i simply divide the searchtimes through single cpu times. If diep however runs parallel i get not such nice numbers. For 2 processors i could get for example: 2.39 1.34 1.01 2.02 1.93 and so on. Not nice distributed numbers. I have it in excel available (thanks to Ron Langeveld) >-elc. > ><snipped>
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.