Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:25:11 05/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2004 at 13:15:16, José Carlos wrote: >On May 21, 2004 at 13:08:54, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On May 21, 2004 at 12:58:19, José Carlos wrote: >> >>>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. >>> >>> >>> This has all been explained in the past (see the archives). >>> For a quick analogy (for those who don't want to read a million posts): >>>Suppose you compute your nps for 100 positions, and save the numbers. Then you >>>are asked for the exact time. You don't have it, but you have the node count. >>>You just multiply node count by nps and give an approximate time. Not exactly >>>the same, but same idea. >>> No fraud. Just too difficult for Vincent to understand. But he'll get it when >>>he grows up, of course. >>> >>> José C. >> >>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? >> >>If i get a complete harddisk crash here, the logfiles from diep world champs >>2003 at a 512 processor machine are still in possession by several other chess >>program authors. >> >>And i never wrote an official article about it! > > > That doesn't prove anything. If I want to make up numbers, I can do it, and I >can make them up with so many decimals as I want. You can say you don't believe >in his paper results. You can say, for the very same reason, that you don't >believe any other paper on earth. You can not believe there's a planet called >Mars. They have made it up. Correct. But you can't accuse NASA of fraud for >that!! Of course he can - - - in a first attempt. Why? I understood Bob explaining that VD had difficulties to explain his bad performance with a machine he got from some sponsors. He had two possibilities. Either he could admit that he's unable to reproduce the promissed results or he could accuse the former results of being cheated. That however requires the direct accusation of fraud. In the meantime I can understand why Bob is thinking about a kind of decision in this comic affair. Certainly not because the status of a VD (who is without academic background, but who has academics in his family as I could read...) but because VD had a certain connection with that industry and now he is talking about fraud, thus insulting Bob. Of course potential future sponsors should be informed about VD and his unreasonable misbehavior. Personally I wouldn't accuse Vincent Diepeveen of anything scientifical because he can't even follow the importances of different experimental designs and such things. And only because of these weaknesses he could insult Bob of fraud. For him this isn't insultive at all because he lacks the simplest basic knowledge. Fact is he got different numbers and because of this Bob must have committed fraud. If it wasn't so sad for Vincent we could laugh out loud and roll on the floor. I'm still holding to my private hypothesis that VD is just a misleaden proxy initiated to make Bob as nervous as possible. What for? Because of Bob's critic of the incredible nonsense of the ICGA leadership in Graz and earlier on; also now for Israel. But since the insults are so false and without a fundament I can't believe that any serious academic helped Vincent. Probably he's on a private agenda and is unable to get the nonsense of his presentation. It's sad to see such a suicidal activity. Therefore we can only thank people like enrico, matt and you who are trying to tell Vincent what is hopelessly wrong in his suspicions and judgements. I fear he can't turn around the direction - although it wouldn't cost him much if he admitted having misunderstood the whole topic. He has neither an academic career nor a personal business at stake. > > José C. > > > > >>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>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.