Fixed with 5.2F

[CThinker]

There was a major issue with the parallel search in 5.2E where the best move was not being copied at the root. This is one of those cases where you think you have created an elegant and compact code, when it fact, it was incorrect and short in logic.

I have fixed this in 5.2F.

Also, you should now be able to set the number of threads by specifying the "threads" option in the command-line. It would be something like:
MP-Thinker.exe hashsize=8 threads=4

Lastly, I have disabled the splitting in interior nodes. For now, splitting is at root nodes only. My tests show very little gain with splitting of interior nodes. So, it is off for now until I have improved it.

If you notice that the node counts don't scale, don't worry. The current code simply is not accurate in adding up the node counts from child threads. There is no node count conspiracy here (until someone finds my NodeCount div 10 code).

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

There was a major issue with the parallel search in 5.2E where the best move was not being copied at the root. This is one of those cases where you think you have created an elegant and compact code, when it fact, it was incorrect and short in logic.

I have fixed this in 5.2F.

Also, you should now be able to set the number of threads by specifying the "threads" option in the command-line. It would be something like:
MP-Thinker.exe hashsize=8 threads=4

Lastly, I have disabled the splitting in interior nodes. For now, splitting is at root nodes only. My tests show very little gain with splitting of interior nodes. So, it is off for now until I have improved it.

If you notice that the node counts don't scale, don't worry. The current code simply is not accurate in adding up the node counts from child threads. There is no node count conspiracy here (until someone finds my NodeCount div 10 code).

Thanks Lance for the quick fix and the great chess engine of yours

[DomLeste]

http://www.geocities.com/thechessthinker/download.html

Theirs the link to MP version enjoy

How do we set up the threads in WB2UCI file?

[DomLeste]

Im guessing its like this? Or In engine parameters after setting it up as UCI engine u can set CPU Power. 50% for a quad uses 2 CPUs?

For my dual core duo

[ENGINE]
Name=Thinker 5.2F-32 MP passive
Author=Lance Perkins, Canada
Filename=Wb2Uci.exe

[OPTIONS]
Program=MP-(Passive)Thinker_32-bit.exe hashsize=5 threads=2
;Terminatehard=true
;ShowThinkingMove=true


Looked at werner post for adapter.eng hashtable settings. You need to put a file called Thinker52F.init or whatever u like to call it in Thinker52F folder.

C:\Program Files\ChessBase\Engines\Thinker52f

adapter.eng renamed to Thinker52F.eng for example in C:\Program Files\ChessBase\Engines

hashsize 5=54mb
hashsize 6 =70mb
hashsize 7=100mb
hashsize 8 = 168mb
9 i saw 299mb

[Parameter]
CommandLine = hashsize=7
Author = Lance Perkins
Engine = Thinker 5.2E MP
Debug = False

[Support]
AnalyzeMode = false
PonderMode = False
CastleAndEP = True

[geots]

There was a major issue with the parallel search in 5.2E where the best move was not being copied at the root. This is one of those cases where you think you have created an elegant and compact code, when it fact, it was incorrect and short in logic.

I have fixed this in 5.2F.

Also, you should now be able to set the number of threads by specifying the "threads" option in the command-line. It would be something like:
MP-Thinker.exe hashsize=8 threads=4

Lastly, I have disabled the splitting in interior nodes. For now, splitting is at root nodes only. My tests show very little gain with splitting of interior nodes. So, it is off for now until I have improved it.

If you notice that the node counts don't scale, don't worry. The current code simply is not accurate in adding up the node counts from child threads. There is no node count conspiracy here (until someone finds my NodeCount div 10 code).

Unfortunately, i am thinking that when you set the number of threads, 2 is as low as it will allow you to go. I dont think it can be set to "1 Thread" Am i right or wrong?

Best,

[Tony Thomas]

There was a major issue with the parallel search in 5.2E where the best move was not being copied at the root. This is one of those cases where you think you have created an elegant and compact code, when it fact, it was incorrect and short in logic.

I have fixed this in 5.2F.

Also, you should now be able to set the number of threads by specifying the "threads" option in the command-line. It would be something like:
MP-Thinker.exe hashsize=8 threads=4

Lastly, I have disabled the splitting in interior nodes. For now, splitting is at root nodes only. My tests show very little gain with splitting of interior nodes. So, it is off for now until I have improved it.

If you notice that the node counts don't scale, don't worry. The current code simply is not accurate in adding up the node counts from child threads. There is no node count conspiracy here (until someone finds my NodeCount div 10 code).

Unfortunately, i am thinking that when you set the number of threads, 2 is as low as it will allow you to go. I dont think it can be set to "1 Thread" Am i right or wrong?

Best,

George, if you want to test it as a single core engine, you dont have to use any commands. Just play with it like you used to.

[geots]

There was a major issue with the parallel search in 5.2E where the best move was not being copied at the root. This is one of those cases where you think you have created an elegant and compact code, when it fact, it was incorrect and short in logic.

I have fixed this in 5.2F.

Also, you should now be able to set the number of threads by specifying the "threads" option in the command-line. It would be something like:
MP-Thinker.exe hashsize=8 threads=4

Lastly, I have disabled the splitting in interior nodes. For now, splitting is at root nodes only. My tests show very little gain with splitting of interior nodes. So, it is off for now until I have improved it.

If you notice that the node counts don't scale, don't worry. The current code simply is not accurate in adding up the node counts from child threads. There is no node count conspiracy here (until someone finds my NodeCount div 10 code).

Unfortunately, i am thinking that when you set the number of threads, 2 is as low as it will allow you to go. I dont think it can be set to "1 Thread" Am i right or wrong?

Best,

George, if you want to test it as a single core engine, you dont have to use any commands. Just play with it like you used to.

Hmm- i will try that- but remember i am converting it to UCI with the adapters. I wonder if that has any bearing on it. At any rate, i will try.
Thanks, Tony.

[geots]

Tried that ,Tony- the damn thing keeps using 2 threads. Any other ideas?

Best,

[Graham Banks]

Tried that ,Tony- the damn thing keeps using 2 threads. Any other ideas?

Best,

Thinker 5.2f is a bugfix for MP only.
Thinker 5.2e was fine on 1CPU.
I'm picking that Thinker 5.2f is an MP version only and that there are no other changes.

[CThinker]

There was a major issue with the parallel search in 5.2E where the best move was not being copied at the root. This is one of those cases where you think you have created an elegant and compact code, when it fact, it was incorrect and short in logic.

I have fixed this in 5.2F.

Also, you should now be able to set the number of threads by specifying the "threads" option in the command-line. It would be something like:
MP-Thinker.exe hashsize=8 threads=4

Lastly, I have disabled the splitting in interior nodes. For now, splitting is at root nodes only. My tests show very little gain with splitting of interior nodes. So, it is off for now until I have improved it.

If you notice that the node counts don't scale, don't worry. The current code simply is not accurate in adding up the node counts from child threads. There is no node count conspiracy here (until someone finds my NodeCount div 10 code).

Unfortunately, i am thinking that when you set the number of threads, 2 is as low as it will allow you to go. I dont think it can be set to "1 Thread" Am i right or wrong?

Best,

5.2E and 5.2F are essentially identical except that 5.2F has parallel search.

If you need the single thread engine, please use 5.2E.

Cheers...