Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:16:25 06/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 17:55:14, Sune Fischer wrote: >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. That is why testing on _one_ computer is generally wrong. :)
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.