Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.

Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON or stick with Ponder = OFF ?

Poll ended at Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:32 pm

Ponder = ON
14
44%
Ponder = OFF (Like it is now)
18
56%
 
Total votes: 32

Martin Thoresen
Posts: 1833
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:07 pm

Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?

Post by Martin Thoresen » Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:32 pm

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?

Dann Corbit
Posts: 8905
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Redmond, WA USA
Contact:

Re: Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?

Post by Dann Corbit » Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:34 pm

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?
My thought is that you should do what you prefer.
The CPU time will come out approximately the same either way, so the quality of the chess will not suffer in either case.

mhalstern
Posts: 484
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:09 am

Re: Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?

Post by mhalstern » Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:43 pm

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.

User avatar
Houdini
Posts: 1471
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?

Post by Houdini » Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:47 pm

Ponder ON is the closest to a real tournament situation, so I'm in favor of that.

Dann Corbit
Posts: 8905
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Redmond, WA USA
Contact:

Re: Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?

Post by Dann Corbit » Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:00 pm

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.
Half the time with twice the cores = twice the time with half the cores.

mhalstern
Posts: 484
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:09 am

Re: Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?

Post by mhalstern » Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:20 am

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?

User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 31310
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?

Post by Graham Banks » Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:51 am

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?
Do what you prefer Martin. You won't please everybody either way. :wink:
My email addresses:
gbanksnz at gmail.com
gbanksnz at yahoo.co.nz

User avatar
MikeB
Posts: 2669
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:34 am
Location: Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania

Re: Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?

Post by MikeB » Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:06 am

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?
It's your choice - so there is no right or wrong answer.

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.

overtond
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 5:10 pm

Re: Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?

Post by overtond » Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:25 am

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.

User avatar
hgm
Posts: 22581
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Amsterdam
Full name: H G Muller
Contact:

Re: Should TCEC switch to Ponder = ON ?

Post by hgm » Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:40 am

WinBoard / XBoard have been able to run engines on remote machines since the stone age.

Post Reply