[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnubg] Replacement for calibrate function?

From: Christian Anthon
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Replacement for calibrate function?
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:48:17 +0200

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Jonathan Kinsey <address@hidden> wrote:
> I'm planning to remove the calibrate option, largely due to the bad
> multithreaded results and general "badness" of this function.
> Maybe someone with some Python skills can try and write a script that does a
> similar job, on the lines of
> 1. Set up some standard settings (eval+random number for example)
> 2. Rollout out or analyse one or more sample positions
> 3. Report on the speed of the machine
> It might be difficult to get the test to run for a reasonable amount of time
> (given the range of cpus/number of threads), ideally it would take about
> 30-60
> seconds I would think.

I'll do it when I find the time. As for the time issue people will be
prepared for it to take longer if they have a slow machine. We could
also make a quick/long option for the test.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]