Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 09:50:06 05/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2004 at 22:40:05, 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...) > >-elc. > ><snipped> In the official journal of ICCA 1997 this is the search times presented for pos 1 cpu 2 cpu 4 cpu 8 cpu 16 cpu 1 2830 1415 832 435 311 2 2849 1424 791 438 274 3 3274 1637 884 467 239 4 2308 1154 591 349 208 5 1584 792 440 243 178 6 4294 2147 1160 670 452 7 1888 993 524 273 187 8 7275 3637 1966 1039 680 9 3940 1970 1094 635 398 10 2431 1215 639 333 187 11 3062 1531 827 425 247 12 2518 1325 662 364 219 13 2131 1121 560 313 192 14 1871 935 534 296 191 15 2648 1324 715 378 243 16 2347 1235 601 321 182 17 4884 2872 1878 1085 814 18 646 358 222 124 84 19 2983 1491 785 426 226 20 7473 3736 1916 1083 530 21 3626 1813 906 489 237 22 2560 1347 691 412 264 23 2039 1019 536 323 206 24 2563 1281 657 337 178 Now if i let excel calculate the speedup numbers based upon this and i let excel calculate the speedups based upon the search times 2 procs 4 processors 8 processors 16 processors 2,000000 3,401442 6,505747 9,099678 2,000702 3,601770 6,504566 10,397810 2,000000 3,703620 7,010707 13,698745 2,000000 3,905245 6,613181 11,096154 2,000000 3,600000 6,518519 8,898876 2,000000 3,701724 6,408955 9,500000 1,901309 3,603053 6,915751 10,096257 2,000275 3,700407 7,001925 10,698529 2,000000 3,601463 6,204724 9,899497 2,000823 3,804382 7,300300 13,000000 2,000000 3,702539 7,204706 12,396761 1,900377 3,803625 6,917582 11,497717 1,900981 3,805357 6,808307 11,098958 2,001070 3,503745 6,320946 9,795812 2,000000 3,703497 7,005291 10,897119 1,900405 3,905158 7,311526 12,895604 1,700557 2,600639 4,501382 6,000000 1,804469 2,909910 5,209677 7,690476 2,000671 3,800000 7,002347 13,199115 2,000268 3,900313 6,900277 14,100000 2,000000 4,002208 7,415133 15,299578 1,900520 3,704776 6,213592 9,696970 2,000981 3,804104 6,312693 9,898058 2,000781 3,901065 7,605341 14,398876 You will realize that these speedup numbers are frauded. Rounded off errors they are not, that's for sure.
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.