I am debating this with my self, and I know there are people that want Ponder or "Permanent brain" to be activated but I also know that there
are people that want it to stay the way it is now.
If Ponder = ON then the max number of cores or threads each engine can use is 3.
With Ponder = OFF (like it is now) then the max number of cores or threads each engine can use is 6.
What do you think/want? Arguments for either?
Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 1833
- Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:07 am
-
- Posts: 12542
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
Re: Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?
My thought is that you should do what you prefer.Martin Thoresen wrote:I am debating this with my self, and I know there are people that want Ponder or "Permanent brain" to be activated but I also know that there
are people that want it to stay the way it is now.
If Ponder = ON then the max number of cores or threads each engine can use is 3.
With Ponder = OFF (like it is now) then the max number of cores or threads each engine can use is 6.
What do you think/want? Arguments for either?
The CPU time will come out approximately the same either way, so the quality of the chess will not suffer in either case.
-
- Posts: 484
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 1:09 am
Re: Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?
I would leave ponder off to get the most out of the cores. The only situation I recommend putting ponder on would be if you were using 2 p's connected via an (do we still use the RS232?) interface. This way each engine could use all available cores all of the time.
-
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:00 am
Re: Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?
Ponder ON is the closest to a real tournament situation, so I'm in favor of that.
-
- Posts: 12542
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
Re: Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?
Half the time with twice the cores = twice the time with half the cores.mhalstern wrote:I would leave ponder off to get the most out of the cores. The only situation I recommend putting ponder on would be if you were using 2 p's connected via an (do we still use the RS232?) interface. This way each engine could use all available cores all of the time.
-
- Posts: 484
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 1:09 am
Re: Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?
Thanks for the math lesson. I should have got that earlier.
To run an engine match with 2 pc's what is the current support connection standard? Also, what GUI's will work with this setup?
To run an engine match with 2 pc's what is the current support connection standard? Also, what GUI's will work with this setup?
-
- Posts: 41477
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?
Do what you prefer Martin. You won't please everybody either way.Martin Thoresen wrote:I am debating this with my self, and I know there are people that want Ponder or "Permanent brain" to be activated but I also know that there
are people that want it to stay the way it is now.
If Ponder = ON then the max number of cores or threads each engine can use is 3.
With Ponder = OFF (like it is now) then the max number of cores or threads each engine can use is 6.
What do you think/want? Arguments for either?
gbanksnz at gmail.com
-
- Posts: 4889
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:34 am
- Location: Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania
Re: Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?
It's your choice - so there is no right or wrong answer.Martin Thoresen wrote:I am debating this with my self, and I know there are people that want Ponder or "Permanent brain" to be activated but I also know that there
are people that want it to stay the way it is now.
If Ponder = ON then the max number of cores or threads each engine can use is 3.
With Ponder = OFF (like it is now) then the max number of cores or threads each engine can use is 6.
What do you think/want? Arguments for either?
But since you asked, I voted for "ponder=on". I believe most authors program their engines for ponder to be on and they are anticipating likewise from their opponent. The area that I believe would be impacted most is time usage. A chess author would anticpate that he would get a certain % of correct ponder hits and program his time usage accordingly and perhaps be more aggressive in time usage ( i.e., that use more time when the program does not ponder correctly.). With no pondering, there are no correct ponder hits and the program would spread his time usage more evenly, knowing that it is impossible to get a correct ponder hit.
-
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 7:10 pm
Re: Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?
I believe all tests should be done this way {2 PCs connected via a network with ponder ON} - I would like to see the UCI/GUI standard modified to include this method and for all test houses {CCRL/CEGT/etc.} to include this test method in their test service offering.
If anyone knows how to do this today using the GUI application {preferably ShredderClassic GUI} then please let me know.
If anyone knows how to do this today using the GUI application {preferably ShredderClassic GUI} then please let me know.
-
- Posts: 27828
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:06 am
- Location: Amsterdam
- Full name: H G Muller
Re: Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?
WinBoard / XBoard have been able to run engines on remote machines since the stone age.