Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: SELECTIVE MATH BY HYATT

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 09:57:16 05/21/04

Go up one level in this thread


On May 21, 2004 at 12:38:01, Matthew Hull wrote:

>On May 21, 2004 at 12:24:12, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>On May 21, 2004 at 12:22:36, Matthew Hull wrote:
>>they are frauded search times.
>
>
>But your reason for claiming fraud is that DIEP does not duplicate the numbers.
>
>Since DIEP uses a different parrallel algorithim than the program described in
>the paper, your alleged proof of fraud is unfounded.  The only way it could be
>is if DIEP is based upon the parallel/split strategy described in the paper.
>But everyone knows that it's not.
>
>Therefore, your claim is extremely unconvincing.
>


You are _totally_ missing his point.  His reason for claiming "fraud" is that he
can't produce decent speedup numbers for his own program.  His "sponsors"
aparently knew about the Cray Blitz numbers, and when his effort "flopped" he
had to do _something_ to avoid looking foolish.  He told me _exactly_ that in a
private email before this all "broke loose"..  It isn't about intellectual
honesty.  It is about _fraud_.  His fraud and his dishonesty.

But, of course, if you just read my frequent responses to his posts, you'll get
the point.  He has made _plenty_ of accusations.  I have challenged each and
every one with facts _anyone_ can verify.  And he runs and hides.  But for this
one case, he _knows_ that all the original data was lost years ago, so he knows
that he has a chance of keeping this "alive" since I will never be able to
recover that data.  And so for 99% of his claims, I've shot him down each and
every time, so that he looks (by now) to be a complete fool.  But for this one
case, all I can do is explain how and why the numbers look as they do, and
that's all.  So there is a "crack" in the door and he keeps trying to squeeze
through.

Now he apparently has my dissertation, even though he claimed he could not get
it for 6 weeks.  And he doesn't like the results there either.  But he can't
discredit them in the same way.  So now we are off in the "depth - first search
is not what anybody uses at a tournament." angle even though that is so utterly
stupid it is hard to believe anyone would make such a statement.  But it is a
part of his "discredit at all costs" agenda.

Notice that when I post something he always says "send me the logs".  I usually
do, or as I did for the last set of data, I just put 'em on my ftp server for
_everyone_ to see.  Have you _ever_ seen him post "Hmmm...  Your logs show that
your 4 cpu speedup really was 3.2X..."  Not a chance.  Have you ever seen _him_
post any logs here showing _anything_ about his speedup?  Who do you suppose
_really_ has something to hide?  I release my source.  I release my logs.  I
release my test sets.  What does Vincent release?  Lots of bullshit.  Nothing
more.  Nothing less.  Always the same.

Lies and more lies, backed up by lies.  Never a retraction when caught
red-handed.  Just more lies, until he gets into a corner, and runs and hides
until the next time...



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.