When should I consider parallel search ?

[MahmoudUthman]

My engine could Currently fall anywhere between 2700:2900 by my estimate on the CCRL single threaded list , when should I consider converting to a parallel search implementation ? I haven't done any optimization yet whether to the search or the evaluation and I haven't implemented any razoring

[mar]

What kind of question is that? Are you able to make your own decisions?
Do whatever you want and when you see fit.
LazySMP is trivial to implement and can be done in less than a week (even less if you can afford to work fulltime on it).

[hgm]

Never consider parallel search. It is an inefficient usage of resources.

[cdani]

Never consider parallel search. It is an inefficient usage of resources.

?

[hgm]

Scaling is never perfect, the various threads will always duplicate some of each other's work. So it is more efficient to run single threaded.

[cdani]

Scaling is never perfect, the various threads will always duplicate some of each other's work. So it is more efficient to run single threaded.

As you sure know an engine playing with 2 cpus play stronger than playing with only one cpu Or maybe I did not understand where you want to go.

[Henk]

It's about nodes per euro.

[cdani]

It's about nodes per euro.

I'm about elo per euro

[hgm]

As you sure know an engine playing with 2 cpus play stronger than playing with only one cpu Or maybe I did not understand where you want to go.

But you can run twice as many engines that use 1 CPU on the same hardware. If you let each of those think twice as long, they are each stronger than the 2-CPU engine. And you still get the same number of moves per second.

Letting them think longer is a more efficient way to get more Elo than parallel search.

[cdani]

Letting them think longer is a more efficient way to get more Elo than parallel search.

Sure, only that you will not be able to do it in a tournament