Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:07:02 09/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 2004 at 18:05:02, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 17, 2004 at 17:57:15, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>I suppose your question is a good one, because we would have to ask: >>"What is the control?" >>In order to answer that question clearly, we would also need to benchmark other >>approaches like 0x88 to see if there is any connection. > >Correct. His paper assumes in some parts that bitboards are inherently a faster >approach than the classic one. Given that there have been at least 500 flamewars >about that issue on this board, I don't think I have to explain that stating >that without proof is a bit 'controversial' to say the least. > >>>It seems he set his goal too high. Just a well-working parallel program is >>>already quite hard. I believe this may have been discussed before the paper >>>started even, as he was a poster here? >>> >>>I won't argue that these people are doing good things but to call this >>>scientific seems to be quite far-fetched to me. >> >>Accurate reporting of observations is good science. > >"We set out to test how x relates to y. We conclude that it should be >investigated how x relates to y." > >His reporting is good. It's just what he set out to do and ended up concluding >that is somewhat silly. > >>When it comes to the actual findings in reports, very frequently that is where >>some really bad science originates. > >Very true, which is why I'm so happy that he included his source code - at least >these results can be verified. It only took me about 2 hours to port it to Win32, and 1.5 hours of it was just typing.
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.