ilari wrote:
If you don't actually need to watch the games live, there's a way to drop Cute Chess GUI's CPU usage to the cutechess-cli level: make sure there's a non-tournament game open where nothing is happening (eg. the default Human-Human game that Cute Chess opens initially) and switch to that game's tab. I just tested this on an average i5 laptop with 2 concurrent games at tc 3: with a tournament tab activated Cute Chess used about 20% CPU and with the Human-Human game active, CPU usage dropped to 3%.
I just attempted to replicate this on my i3 with the tournaments I posted previously. Task manager shows 74-78% cpu usage with cutechess-cli and GUI. The human window didn't seem to make much difference. This is with 4 engines, concurrency 3, TC 10 + .01
I dropped concurrency to 2 and got 50% and 1 and got 25% CPU usage in both cli and GUI.
ilari wrote:
If you don't actually need to watch the games live, there's a way to drop Cute Chess GUI's CPU usage to the cutechess-cli level: make sure there's a non-tournament game open where nothing is happening (eg. the default Human-Human game that Cute Chess opens initially) and switch to that game's tab. I just tested this on an average i5 laptop with 2 concurrent games at tc 3: with a tournament tab activated Cute Chess used about 20% CPU and with the Human-Human game active, CPU usage dropped to 3%.
I just attempted to replicate this on my i3 with the tournaments I posted previously. Task manager shows 74-78% cpu usage with cutechess-cli and GUI. The human window didn't seem to make much difference. This is with 4 engines, concurrency 3, TC 10 + .01
I dropped concurrency to 2 and got 50% and 1 and got 25% CPU usage in both cli and GUI.
Are you sure it's Cute Chess (or cutechess-cli) using all the CPU and not the engines? Because 74-78% sounds like what the total CPU load (Cute Chess + 3 engines thinking) should be with concurrency 3 on a 4-CPU machine.
hgm wrote:Paul was using 10+0.01, and allmy previous remarks referred to that case.
I also note that you are using logical cores, which means that the different tasks affect each other anyway. You cannot expect reliable testing under such conditions even when you keep two cores in reserve for the GUI. Because when the GUI sleeps, the OS will distribute the hyper threads over those cores to keep them apart. So some engines will have a private physical core, while others have to share one.
If you want to run like this you should set process affinities. This is what I always do when I do concurrent testing on WinBoard: make sure that each game can only use a different set of two virtual cores on the same physical one.
hgm wrote:
It seems I still would have to do some name conversion, e.g. chess -> normal. But before I do that I will try to get some consensus there. For currently Stockfish-variant callsit "standard". And uses "antichess" for some suicide / giveaway / losers variant.
Don't take too seriously what Sjaak II outputs for variant names here, it's just what it has defined without any aliasing. In CECP mode it will also send alternate names that the GUI understands (in particular, "normal") and I can easily do the same here.
Note that in WinBoard I have a continuous option for switching btween purely random and best move only: the user can set a power to which the bookweight is elevated before playing proportional to the weight. The exponent is caluclated as (100-x)/x, where x is the 'book variability', so that it runs from 0 (x=100, all moves equal probability) to infinite (heighest weight(s) only). That is more flexible than just an on/off option.
hgm wrote:Note that in WinBoard I have a continuous option for switching btween purely random and best move only: the user can set a power to which the bookweight is elevated before playing proportional to the weight. The exponent is caluclated as (100-x)/x, where x is the 'book variability', so that it runs from 0 (x=100, all moves equal probability) to infinite (heighest weight(s) only). That is more flexible than just an on/off option.
The feature that I want is to use polyglot book in the following manner, if it gives e4 a6 Nf3 b6 to engine1 as white, it would also give this line to engine2 as white that is engine1 - engine2 in first game and engine2 - engine1 in the second game, so that even when selection is random it is fair to both engines can winboard do that?
