BSoD-on-Windows-10

The first step is to understand the issue, then find a solution.

1. Windows Start -> type "Event" and start the Event Viewer
2. Open the Windows Logs
3. Check the Application and System categories at the Date and Time the crash occurred.

What are the Details?

My first guess without knowing more would be that the parameters of the optimization were too large, leading to a memory issue, which you might be able to solve by increasing the page file size (or adding more memory).

Yes, there are a lot of optimization parameters, but this is not a reason to fall. The program should count hours, days, months if necessary, but should not crash and crash Windows.
I have 64 gigabytes of memory, I do not think that this is not enough.
The event log shows the following:



Processor and Memory characteristics:

Here is more BSoD data

Try to reduce the number of optimization parameters until the memory issue is resolved. Then we would have an insight into what makes it fail.

Also have you conducted extensive RAM testing? Faulty memory may be the likely culprit of your BSOD:
https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/how-to-test-ram

I will put a memory check on the night, but I do not think that the problem is in it. I have server memory with ECC error correction. Until now, there have never been any problems with it.

ECC is good but point is, the long-running optimization may just turn out to be a trigger for potential hardware problems. Just for the sake of example, and not to imply that it applies to your case, here's a troubleshooting procedure for the generic BSoD code #124 on MSFT forums:
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_10-performance/consecutive-bsod-code-124-on-windows-10/61a76a72-8f7a-484a-b21f-07a2454b8a2e

At any rate, it's virtually impossible to draw conclusions without having a slightest idea what code you may be running, on what data etc.

BugCheck Code 124 from a MS-MVP:
A "stop 0x124" is different from most other types of bluescreens because it stems from a hardware complaint.
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_10-update/bugcheck-code-124/98c998d2-447a-40ce-ae1f-8211e355f14d

This one suggests an issue with Razer drivers:
https://www.tenforums.com/bsod-crashes-debugging/175620-bsod-bugcheck-1001-0x00000124-help.html

Here's another potentially caused by drivers, and also includes some "generic advice" to stop overclocking and update RAID drivers.
https://www.sevenforums.com/bsod-help-support/208569-bsod-event-id-1001-bug-check-0x00000124-caused-ntoskrnl-exe-driver.html

QUOTE:
I won the death screen. Thank you for the tip. I had an overclocked CPU, I had already forgotten about it. I returned the native frequencies in the bios and the program stopped crashing.

Good to hear that. Thought about an overclocked CPU too but the screenshot indicated it was running at the rate of 3.70GHz (which seems native for this Xeon).

QUOTE:
But what I want to note... WL7 counts only about 25% faster than WL6, and the processor loads at full capacity. Given the multi-core I'm honestly disappointed. I thought the calculation would be much faster.

I'm disappointed not having found your name on the roster of WL6 customers. ;) Anyway, I would not make such far-reaching conclusions without knowing what is being compared!

QUOTE:
Good to hear that. Thought about an overclocked CPU too but the screenshot indicated it was running at the rate of 3.70GHz (which seems native for this Xeon).

3.70 GHz it writes there the native frequency of the processor, and in reality it worked for me at 4.2 Ghz.

QUOTE:
I'm disappointed not having found your name on the roster of WL6 customers. ;)

Well you understand that to compare it is not necessary to have a license for WL6 ;) But let's not talk about sad things )))

QUOTE:
Anyway, I would not make such far-reaching conclusions without knowing what is being compared!

We compared the Monte Carlo calculation in WL6 and the Shrinking calculation in WL7 with the same total number of iterations.