Author: Thomas Mayer
Date: 15:25:11 01/22/06
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Andreas, On January 22, 2006 at 18:19:43, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >On January 22, 2006 at 17:46:33, Thomas Mayer wrote: > >>Hi Joseph, >> >>in fact there is a little difference between how chessbase native engines are >>handled and uci-engines are handled. But this is not the fault of chessbase, >>it's simply windows. You know, usually Windows is set to prefer foreground >>application. Natives are part of the GUI, so in fact they are the foreground >>application. UCI-engines instead are loaded as a seperated .exe and became >>background applications. Therefor when running with ponder=on on a single CPU >>system the native will get more CPU time (I believe a lot people have reported >>that already). > >But this mean also that if a third process is using resources on the system is >takes away more CPU time from the UCI engine than from the Chessbase native >engine, doesn't it? That's correct. At least as I understand it. That's why e.g. the idea of the MCS-engines wasn't that bad, because a loaded .dll is also treated like a part of the GUI = foreground application. On the other hand I love the text-stream stuff because of it's ease... and of course because of the portability Greets, Thomas
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.