Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:46:47 05/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2004 at 12:24:12, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 21, 2004 at 12:22:36, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On May 21, 2004 at 12:13:09, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>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. >> >> >> >>Is it not true that DIEP uses a different parallel strategy than crafty or Cray >>Blitz? If so, then one should not be surprised that their results are not the >>same. >> >>So you are comparing apples and oranges, yes? >> >>Most programmers can understand this. >> > >LEARN TO READ what i write. What is your IQ? > >What i write is that his search times cannot be original search times but that >they are frauded search times. > >You do not get search times that go to perfect speedup numbers for so many >speedup numbers. > You do if you compute the search times by taking the speedup and multiplying it by the 16-cpu time, when all you have is the game log from the actual game played... That's all been explained. Many times. Of course, so was the speedup formula. Where is that JICCA article citation? Where is the CCC post where I claimed that my speedup formula worked for _any_ number of processors? Where is the citation for the claim that alpha/beta is not a depth-first search, that iterative deepening is not depth-first search, etc. After every counter-example people here posted? Where is your proof for your famous "Crafty gets _zero_ speedup when tested at my dual..."??? Everyone else gets about 1.8X at their duals. Where is your proof for your famous "nobody else but hyatt gets 1.7x at a dual." Although I suppose I could give you credit there since it seems that everyone that posted results here actually got _better_ than 1.7X. But we both know that is _not_ what you were implying. Where is your proof of anything? Where is your integrity? Where is your honesty? None to be found _anywhere_. So continue your never-ending series of lies. Lookin' _real_ good, Vincent. >> >>> >>>Not nice distributed numbers. >>> >>>I have it in excel available (thanks to Ron Langeveld) >>> >>>>-elc. >>>> >>>><snipped>
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.