Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 14:55:14 06/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 13:56:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 01, 2004 at 12:03:44, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On June 01, 2004 at 11:52:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>> >>>>As for pondering you obviously can't play with ponder on at a uni-processor, so >>>>I don't see how that can come as a surprise. >>> >>>I do it all the time with no problems whatsoever. So what if each program gets >>>1/2 of the processor? >> >>1/2 cpu, exactly, would be no problem. >>But what if one engine decides to "ponder" with 10 threads, or if the threads >>don't run at the same priority? >> >>What if one engine decides to skip pondering for one move, then the other gets >>100%. That's double punishment. > >That's a stupid engine, too. :) So? No reason to punish it twice, that just forces everyone to do stupid hacks to keep them at full load. There are other issues as well, ie. if one engine starts hitting TBs heavily, how does that influence cpu load between the programs? What about trashing the cache? Author of engine X has spend many hours fine tuning his memory footprint to fix exactly into the 256 kb. Running a second program completely cripples his engine, he claims, this was _not_ what it was designed for. -S.
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.