Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 15:31:48 06/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 18:16:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. :) What's wrong with it if you turn pondering off? -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.