Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:37:33 06/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 18:31:48, Sune Fischer wrote: >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. Perhaps an engine is not well tested in that mode? Same problem as turning _anything_ off. IE go buy a BMW 325. Come hook it up to my boat and drag it to the lake. Take it back to the shop to have the transmission repaired. It wasn't designed to do that. Yes it has four wheels, a reasonable torquey engine, but you are outside its design parameters. Crafty is similar to that with respect to the book. Rather than spend time hand-tuning, I spent time writing code to automatically tune the book. Now I have to do without that? Did I make a bad choice by investing the time in book learning? Why was it a bad choice? Because some want to play without it? I can definitely repair that oversight and will. :) IMHO an engine should be tested "as is". If you want to twiddle with a new "personality" then that is fine. Everyone is doing that but they are making it clear that things are far from "normal" by naming the personality they are creating, to make it distinct from the default personality.
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.