Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:53:23 08/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2004 at 10:34:13, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 26, 2004 at 10:14:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 25, 2004 at 09:56:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On August 25, 2004 at 05:41:09, Daniel Clausen wrote: >>> >>>>On August 25, 2004 at 05:04:00, Graham Laight wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 24, 2004 at 20:54:33, Christopher Conkie wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Hi Eduard, >>>>>> >>>>>>It's all very interesting these differing opinions. I'm just wondering whether >>>>>>all the users who want to discuss about computer chess would like to go to >>>>>>USENET. I'm not sure that Steve thought it was a good idea either. >>>>>> >>>>>>You have got me facinated however. Where is this moderate, frugal, limited, >>>>>>ordinary place we should all go to talk about computer chess? >>>>> >>>>>http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&group=rec.games.chess.computer >>>> >>>>I'm neither pro or contra USENET here, but keep in mind, that the discussion >>>>style would change slightly. In USENET it can take up to a day until everyone >>>>can see the post. It's also possible that you see the answer to something w/o >>>>seeing the original question yet. Nothing wrong with that, but it's something >>>>different to how CCC works at the moment. >>> >>>A big problem of CCC is that it moves too fast and that searching in archives >>>never works and after a day or 2 all postings you did you can't read any reply >>>from anymore as they are gone. Usenet gets saved everywhere. >>> >>>A good example is that a few years ago here at CCC hyatt posted that he had >>>tested quad xeons with 1MB L2 cache versus Xeons with several MB's L2 cache and >>>saw zero difference in speed. >> >>Grow up. There were _never_ xeons with "several MB's L2 cache". I specifically >>tested 512K 1024K and 2048K. The results I posted a few years back simply said >>"the larger cache is not worth the much larger cost." > >>Feel free to make up whatever you want, of course. You always do... > >To be exact you posted there was 0% difference in speed between the different L2 >cache sized Xeons. > Please post the quote, with context. "zero percent difference with respect to cost" is one thing. I _might_ have said that as 17% improvement for 4x the cost is not very good. But I'll wait for your quote. Particularly since you also claimed I wrote a JICCA paper about Crafty that you could never cite. Particularly since you claimed that I had said my speedup formula worked for any number of processors when I had actually claimed it was an estimate that ha only been tested through 8/16 processors. You are good at posting things you _claim_ others wrote. But you _never_ back them up with facts. In the case of the JICCA article, you can't get away with blaming CCC archives. the JICCA has a complete list of all articles available on the web. What is your excuse there? Fraud? The only cache question I ever remember answering here was the "Is the larger price of the bigger xeon L2 cache worth it?" My answer was "no". My quad chassis cost me about $5500 when I bought it. The 512K L2 xeons were about $1250 each. Total cost was 10,500 plus disk drives. 1024K xeons were 2500 bucks a pop. Price of machine would have climbed to 15,500. 2048K xeons were about $5500. Price would have climbed to $27,500. Was that worth the 17% improvement? Not by any reasoning I could think of. >Which renders your entire discussion with Tom Kerrigan as complete nonsense from >your side. Yes it was. I just ran the test with a well-known program to see what happened, and posted the results here as I always do. When I make a statement I generally post data to back it up. When someone else posts something, you _always_ demand data. And I usually supply it. Where is _your_ data to support _your_ speedup claims for _your_ program? Remember the days of "my speedup is > 2.0 for two processors and I can proof why that is reasonable with good hashing"??? Where _is_ the data? Where is the WCCC data? Where is _any_ data to support your crap? Only in your head??? I've made all of mine available. Which is _far_ more than you have done. And you talk about dishonesty. Check out the closest mirror. So in reality, _any_ discussion with _You_ is a pointless discussion. You make things up. You even make things up and then claim that I (or others) wrote them to support your own made-up stuff. Marvelous strategy. > >> >>> >>>Now we have a big thread here where he denies it. >>> >>>At RGCC such an idiocy would not happen. You search his old posting and dang, he >>>has to shut up. >>> >>>Now there have been tens of postings with Kerrigan in all his rights exploding >>>and Hyatt keeping posting nonsense. >>> >>>Even worse is that in CCC this nonsense gets posted within a few minutes. In >>>RGCC it takes at least 1 minute for your posting to show up and a few minutes >>>for world wide distribution. >>> >> >> >>Shows your ignorance of usenet news. It all depends on how your local newsfeed >>is configured. We send and receive usenet news articles _continuously_ here, so >>that there is little delay on our end. If your local newsfeed only uploads >>every 15 minutes, you will see a 15 minute delay before your articles get out. >>But that isn't the case for general usenet news. >> >> >> >> >> >>>Note that if you want to pay for a message board system that will cost you the >>>big amount of 12 dollar a month, if you want your own root server with 1.2 >>>terabyte bandwidth a month it goes up to 50 dollar a month soon. >>> >>>Starting a member paid message board system is the biggest idiocy i ever read >>>about. >>> >>>CCC is already reaching so little persons. >>> >>>Someone interested in computerchess will not soon find CCC. In fact they never >>>find it as you need a username and a password to login. >>> >>>I do not know a single computerchess enthusiast who found himself this forum. >>> >>>Now let alone people who are interested in computerchess but are not very >>>fanatical searching for information. >>> >>>>Also, messages which only make sense for a few minutes or hours (like >>>>game-number of a certain game in ICC) won't be possible anymore. Some people >>>>will consider this a good thing, others a bad thing. >>>> >>>>Another point is that moderation as it works here won't work there. You either >>>>have no moderation or you have a moderated group, where each post has to be >>>>approved first before it gets forwarded to the group. (at least I think that's >>>>how it works, please correct me if I'm wrong) >>>> >>>>Sargon
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.