TCEC resurrection - need to decide between ponder ON or OFF

[Martin Thoresen]

...and the choices are:

1: 3 cores ponder OFF
2: 1 core ponder ON

The computer that is going to be used is an Intel Core i7 3770k @ 4400 MHz.

With ponder OFF the engines will search faster/deeper with 3 cores as opposed to just 1.

On the other hand, with ponder ON it doesn't matter if the engine is SMP capable or not as all engines have equal terms.

What do you prefer?

[BubbaTough]

My opinion on this matter has recently changed.

-Sam

[Graham Banks]

...and the choices are:

1: 3 cores ponder OFF
2: 1 core ponder ON

The computer that is going to be used is an Intel Core i7 3770k @ 4400 MHz.

With ponder OFF the engines will search faster/deeper with 3 cores as opposed to just 1.

On the other hand, with ponder ON it doesn't matter if the engine is SMP capable or not as all engines have equal terms.

What do you prefer?

Hi Martin,

it's great to see you back on the scene.

For what it's worth, I think you should go with your own preference. You'll enjoy things more that way.

Graham.

[Hugo]

...and the choices are:

1: 3 cores ponder OFF
2: 1 core ponder ON

The computer that is going to be used is an Intel Core i7 3770k @ 4400 MHz.

With ponder OFF the engines will search faster/deeper with 3 cores as opposed to just 1.

On the other hand, with ponder ON it doesn't matter if the engine is SMP capable or not as all engines have equal terms.

What do you prefer?

Hi Martin,

it's great to see you back on the scene.

For what it's worth, I think you should go with your own preference. You'll enjoy things more that way.

Graham.

1++

[lucasart]

Ponder OFF, without hesitation!

IMO, the best way to conduct a tournament is as follows (assuming you have N CPU, example N=8 on my i7)

=> non SMP engines
- run N-1 games in parrallel (using cutechess-cli for example)
- pondering OFF
- each engine uses one search thread
- you leave 1 core for the operating system (even when it "looks" idle, it never is, especially if you are using windows). this is uber-important!

=> SMP engines
- One game at a time
- Each engine has pondering OFF, and uses N-1 search threads (or maybe N, but remember that you're introducing another source of variance that you cannot measure, so you can't trust blindly the LOS from any models etc.)

In no event does pondering make any sense. And I really don't understand why CEGT is now doing another rating list with pondering ON for example.

The only case where pondering makes sense, is when you (human player) are playing against the computer, and want the computer to think on your time.

[Lavir]

In no event does pondering make any sense. And I really don't understand why CEGT is now doing another rating list with pondering ON for example.

And why do you think that's so?

There is a long diatribe on this point. Many say that PB is the best since engines are meant to be used that way (the time management etc. is meant for PB), other says that PB introduces a possible sharing of resources by the engines on 1 PC.

I have yet to understand why with PB ON the possibility of "sharing" should be more than with PB OFF.

I am not biased one way or another and in my tests the results are usually the same (apart rare exception) one way or another. Naturally if one has the leisure to have 2 same PC then it's neither a question. But even in this case many says that the "best" is 1 PC for the GUI + 2 for the engines to remove any possibility of sharing (yes, engine testers are paranoid, that's what I discovered).

In this particular case, IMO, it's more a diatribe if to have all engines have the same terms or not, more than PB ON/OFF. Either all 1 core or MP engines get 3 vs 1.

P.S: Then in your i7 you don't have 8 cores, but 4. If you use the logical cores for concurrency you would make a mess.

[lucasart]

I have yet to understand why with PB ON the possibility of "sharing" should be more than with PB OFF.

??????

It's obvious! If you have more searching threads than CPUs...

[Lavir]

???????

And why should you have more searching threads than CPUs with PB ON????
And what it has to do with PB ON/OFF at all?????

On an i7 (for example) you can use 2 vs 2 PB ON or 4 vs 4 PB OFF, or, if you want to be use the PC, 1 vs 1 PB ON or 3 vs 3 PB OFF, so in both cases you naturally use the threads you have, not more.

If one is an idiot and gives 4 vs 4 PB ON (when you only have 4 threads, as in the above example), that's not a fault of PB ON, and sharing of resources has nothing to do with it.

[Modern Times]

My vote would be two cores with ponder Off. Three is a weird number.

[lucasart]

If one is an idiot and gives 4 vs 4 PB ON (when you only have 4 threads, as in the above example), that's not a fault of PB ON, and sharing of resources has nothing to do with it.

But most testers are not programmers. It doesn't mean they are idiots, but it does mean that they are very likely to misuse/misunderstand threads/pondering. Just read the posts on here, and see for yourself.

Anyway, I still think that pondering is a bad idea, except when you are playuing against the computer, and more generally when you don't have two engines sharing resources (example engine A running on computer A, vs engine B running on computer B, communicating via a server like freechess).

So, for fear of misuse, as well as lazyness, I never implemented the pondering option in my engine.