Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 10:44:19 05/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2004 at 12:57:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Yes, his agenda is pretty clear. One cannot help but be mystified as to how postings (accusations) in this forum make their way to his "sponsors". How does a private citizen acquire patrons who can be so easily flim-flammed? Is that how he pays the rent? I believe you posted that he and GCP use "heavy processes" instead of "threads", and that as such, the speed potential is somewhat less. I had thought the 2003 machine VD had was a kind of NUMA, and that it took a long time to get all the processors busy. Would that have had anything to do with the process vs thread decision? > >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.