Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:09:12 05/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2004 at 13:55:18, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>The difference is, this article is the only article in history and the only >data >in history in an official journal that proves the dts algorithm as >implemented >by hyatt to get 11.1 speedup at 16 processors. >> >>His thesis says 8.81 >> >>Do you get it? > > > >The 11.1 and 8.81 were done at different search depths on different >acrchitectures and for different sets of positions (IIRC). > >That I did get, which means your accusation is spurious. > > > This is hopeless. He's already off to trying to discredit the 8.81 as well by saying it was based on a search method "nobody would show up at a tournament using" and looking like a complete fool in the process. Of course there is a difference between searching 5 plies and 10 plies deep, in terms of parallel search efficiency. Of course there is a difference between searching random positions (BK positions) and 24 consecutive positions that were played in a real game by Cray Blitz. Of course there is a difference between running on a .7 mip machine with a shared memory bus, and a 16-cpu Cray with 4K banks of memory and a _real_ crossbar connecting processors and memory. Of course all those technical details are a bit much for Vincent. He's +still+ recovering from the opteron data and the dual G5 data, and the dual athlon data and all the other data that showed that my linear speedup approximation was pretty close, contrary to his repeatedly written claim here. Who could _possibly_ put any credibility into someone that says I wrote something, then can't cite the article, while when someone asks about an article about Deep Blue, he cites it correctly and quickly. Who could _possibly_ put any credibility into someone that says I posted that my speedup formula works for any number of CPUS, then refuses to provide the quote, only to have _others_ provide quotes from me that say my formula is only verified for 4-8 cpus. Who could _possibly_ put any credibility into someone that says that I said in an interview on radio that "no program will _ever_ be as strong as deep blue" when you can find plenty of quotes from me saying that with today's hardware, it is very likely that some programs could be as good or better, given the right hardware. Who could _possibly_ put any credibility into such a brazen liar, someone that won't back up his words with facts, someone that runs and hides when confronted with the actual truth or facts?
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.