ChessUSA.com TalkChess.com
Hosted by Your Move Chess & Games
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

UCI protocol and SMP
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic       TalkChess.com Forum Index -> Computer Chess Club: Programming and Technical Discussions Threaded
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Aart Bik



Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 561
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:36 pm    Post subject: UCI protocol and SMP Reply to topic Reply with quote

Does the UCI protocol provide a standard way of informing the engine how many cpu's (cores if you want) it may use for an SMP implementation? If not, is there a de-facto standard other engines use?

The most recent UCI standard that I downloaded does not seem to address these details yet.

(I guess it is no secret what I am working on next Smile)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
krazyken
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:50 pm    Post subject: Re: UCI protocol and SMP Reply to topic Reply with quote

Usually people just make it a UCI parameter.

What you call it is up to you.
Hiarcs uses "Core Threads"
Glaurung uses "Threads"
Rybka use "Max CPUs"
Back to top
Aart Bik



Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 561
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:55 pm    Post subject: Re: UCI protocol and SMP Reply to topic Reply with quote

Thanks.

It seems the life of our esteemed tournament managers would be a little easier with an addition to the UCI standard, but until then I will come up with my own option name as you suggest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
H.G.Muller



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 21295
Location: Amsterdam

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:37 pm    Post subject: Re: UCI protocol and SMP Reply to topic Reply with quote

Try to pick one that is already in use, then we can have Polyglot use that one to translate the WinBoard ' cores' command into UCI.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Aart Bik



Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 561
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:41 pm    Post subject: Re: UCI protocol and SMP Reply to topic Reply with quote

That makes sense. I personally thought Glaurung's "Threads" was a good choice, so I am going with that one.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
krazyken
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:55 pm    Post subject: Re: UCI protocol and SMP Reply to topic Reply with quote

Well if you are going to mess with Polyglot, it might just be simpler to make the cores command a configurable parameter in the polyglot section.

for glaurung you'd use cores = "Threads"
for Rybka, cores = "Max CPUs"

Probably be fine to use "Threads" as the default.
Back to top
Zach Wegner



Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 1922
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:22 am    Post subject: Re: UCI protocol and SMP Reply to topic Reply with quote

abik wrote:
That makes sense. I personally thought Glaurung's "Threads" was a good choice, so I am going with that one.....
Nooo! What about the programs out there that use processes?

I don't like "cores" either. Really the only term that makes sense IMO is "CPUs".
_________________
http://zct.sourceforge.net
http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Aart Bik



Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 561
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:00 am    Post subject: Re: UCI protocol and SMP Reply to topic Reply with quote

Yeah, I was going to use Windows threads and pthreads for Linux/MacOS, so I was quite content with that name Smile

Okay, is there consensus on CPUs....?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Robert Hyatt



Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 20311
Location: Birmingham, AL

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:19 am    Post subject: Re: UCI protocol and SMP Reply to topic Reply with quote

Zach Wegner wrote:
abik wrote:
That makes sense. I personally thought Glaurung's "Threads" was a good choice, so I am going with that one.....
Nooo! What about the programs out there that use processes?

I don't like "cores" either. Really the only term that makes sense IMO is "CPUs".


Threads is wrong for some. Processes is wrong for others. CPUs or Processors is the appropriate term. Cores should be dropped from everyone's vocabulary in this context...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
H.G.Muller



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 21295
Location: Amsterdam

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:16 am    Post subject: Re: UCI protocol and SMP Reply to topic Reply with quote

Would it be possible to get a consensus here?

If Glaurung, HIARCS and Rybka would all change to using 'Processors' in UCI, I don't think it is too late to change the 'cores' command I added to my alpha version of WinBoard into 'processors' as well, and have Polyglot translate one into the other.

Who is the de-facto authority on UCI protocol? SMK? The author of Arena?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic       TalkChess.com Forum Index -> Computer Chess Club: Programming and Technical Discussions All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Threaded
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Enhanced with Moby Threads