Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 03:03:18 08/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2004 at 21:27:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >Here is a quote from ICC: > >quote on=================================================== >DIEP(C DM)(64): because they claimed having 'solved' chess and people like hyatt >supporting that indirectly (by saying that nothing ever can get better than that >old program) >quote off================================================== > >This is _another_ case where I want to see a _specific_ quote, or a specific >citation for an article where I made that statement (nothing can ever get better >than DB). I've never said it. I've never implied it. In fact, I have been >quoted more than once where I predicted that hardware would eventually take us >well beyond DB's speed/performance. > >My quote was that in 1997, it would take 10+ years for a micro-computer based >program to approach DB's speed. Today I can hit 10M nodes per second on a quad >opteron, 20M on an 8-way. Probably approaching 40M on a 16-way box. That isn't >as fast as DB, but it is in the ballpark. And I still have 3 more years on my >"prediction". Next year AMD has promised a dual-core opteron, so that 16-way >box will instantly become a 32-way box. 80M if there is no clock speed >improvement, yet they say it will be faster via clock as well. So 2007 may be >enough time to hit 200M roughly, if not more. > >But to Vincent, once again, please provide an exact quote with the source, or an >exact citation of a paper I wrote, where I made the statement you claimed I >made. All I claim is that you are a liar. > >Here's yet another case to join the JICCA paper you claimed I wrote, the CCC >posts you claimed I made, etc. > >The list is growing. > >Your credibility is shrinking. Why don't you just adopt the policy of not using >_my_ name with your nonsense? I don't exactly drop your name in every >conversation I hold. You ought to do the same. You'd look a lot less ignorant. Hi Bob, what about a concealed microphone to publish even more junk from Vincent? ;-) I admit, that you have to response, if you got attacked by Vincent. One problem with your deathless dispute with Vincent is that the "average" poster here is no longer able to prove who was absolutely right, due to lack of knowledge and competence. And like in other (political) conflicts with some escalation cycles over years, one really has problems to look for the initial "thrown of the first stone". Using an "absolute truth" scale, it is probably 90% to 10% in favour to you, or even better. But unfortunately, it seems, there is often no "absolute truth". For instance the memory latency discussion, was "only" about the definition of memory latency. So in some "pragmatic" sense of latency, how long a random hash read could take with all the possible TLB issues, Vincent was right. With the correct definition of memory latency you was right. I found that discussion productive in the way, that we now all know more about the difference of memory latency and the worst case behaviour of a random read. Cheers, Gerd
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.