STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 58462 W: 10615 L: 10558 D: 37289
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 65061 W: 8539 L: 8477 D: 48045
It is worth noting that an attempt to only increase the bonus passed STC but failed LTC, and
an attempt to remove the cap without increasing the bonus is still running at STC, but will probably fail after more than 100k.
Bench: 6188591
Closes#1063
This patch removes the empty rows at the beginning and at the end of
MobilityBonus[] and Protector[] arrays:
• reducing the size of MobilityBonus from 768 bytes to 512 bytes
• reducing the size of Protector from 1024 to 512 bytes
Also adds some comments and cleaner code for the arrays in pawns.cpp
No speed penalty (measured speed-up of 0.4%).
No functional change.
Closes#1018
By defining "strongly protected" as "protected by a pawn, or protected
by two pieces and not attacked by two enemy pieces".
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 17050 W: 3128 L: 2931 D: 10991
Passed LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 120995 W: 15852 L: 15343 D: 89800
Bench : 6269229
Closes#1016
Initial protective idea by Snicolet for knight, for other pieces too
Patch add penalties and bonuses for pieces, depending on the distance from the own king
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 21192 W: 3919 L: 3704 D: 13569
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 26177 W: 3642 L: 3435 D: 19100
Bench : 6687377
Closes#1012
Positions with pawns on only one flank tend to be more drawish. We add
a term to the initiative bonus to help the attacking player keep pawns
on both flanks.
STC: yellowish run stopped after 257137 games
LLR: -0.92 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 257137 W: 46560 L: 45511 D: 165066
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 15602 W: 2125 L: 1956 D: 11521
Bench : 6976310
Closes#1009
A tuning patch which cover the following changes:
increase the importance of queen and rook mobility in endgame and
decrease it in mg, since if we use the heavy pieces too early in the game
we will just make opponent develop their pieces by threatening ours.
King Psqt:
1)King will be encouraged more to stay in the first ranks in the MG
2)and will be encouraged more to go to the middle of the board/last ranks in the EG
Bishop scale better in EG
Logical changes on various psqt tables
1/6 of the changes of the last tuning session on mobility tables
STC: LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 227879 W: 41240 L: 40313 D: 146326
LTC : LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 167047 W: 21871 L: 21291 D: 123885
Bench: 5695960
Closes#1008
Minor non-functional simplifications in computing the scale factor.
In my opinion, the code is now slightly more readable:
- remove one condition which can never be satisfied.
- immediately return instead of assigning the sf variable.
Tested for non-regression:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 62162 W: 11166 L: 11115 D: 39881
No functional change
Closes#992
Results for 20 tests for each version (pgo-builds):
Base Test Diff
Mean 2110519 2118116 -7597
StDev 8727 4906 10112
p-value: 0,774
speedup: 0,004
Further verified for no regression:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5885abd10ebc5915193f79e6
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 21786 W: 3959 L: 3840 D: 13987
No functional change
Move more code into eval_init, removing some
clutter in the main routine.
Write eval_init only from "our" point of view
(do not init the attackedBy[Them] bitboards).
Add mobilityArea to the evalinfo
A few edits while being there
tested for non-regression at STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/587fab230ebc5915193f77d9
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 39585 W: 7183 L: 7094 D: 25308
Non functional change.
After we have taken into account all cheap evaluation
terms, we check whether the score exceeds a given threshold.
If this is the case, we return a scaled down evaluation.
STC:
LLR: 3.35 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 12575 W: 2316 L: 2122 D: 8137
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 67480 W: 9016 L: 8677 D: 49787
Current version is the one rewritten by ceebo
further edited by me.
Bench: 5367704
Non-functional changes
a) splitting the threat array to avoid using an enum
b) reorder the scores according to functions where they are used.
c) declarations in evaluate_pieces after the const(s) like elsewhere
d) more compact definitions of KingFlank,
now that we need it also for the PanwLessFlank penalty.
e) reuse CenterFiles in evaluate_space
f) move one line inside next popcount
No functional change.
It was a bit of a hack, without intrinsic value, but rather compensating for the
fact that checks were mistuned.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 88308 W: 15553 L: 15545 D: 57210
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 53115 W: 6741 L: 6662 D: 39712
bench 5468995
Rename shift_bb() to shift(), and DELTA_S to SOUTH, etc.
to improve code readability, especially in evaluate.cpp
when they are used together:
old b = shift_bb<DELTA_S>(pos.pieces(PAWN))
new b = shift<SOUTH>(pos.pieces(PAWN))
While there fix some small code style issues.
No functional change.
Rescales the king danger variables in evaluate_king() to
suppress the KingDanger[] array. This avoids the cost of
the memory accesses to the array and simplifies the non-linear
transformation used.
Full credits to "hxim" for the seminal idea and implementation,
see pull request #786.
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/786
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 9649 W: 1829 L: 1689 D: 6131
Passed LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 53494 W: 7254 L: 7178 D: 39062
Bench: 6116200
Don't allow pinned pieces to attack the exchange-square as long all
pinners (this includes also potential ones) are on their original
square.
As soon a pinner moves to the exchange-square or get captured on it, we
fall back to standard SEE behaviour.
This correctly handles the majority of cases with absolute pins.
bench: 6883133
In evaluate, we start by initializing the pos.psq_score
and adding the material imbalance. After that, we check
whether a specialized eval exists and if yes we return
that value and discard whatever we have computed until now.
It sounds more logical to first probe material entry and
return if we have a specialized eval, and only if it is
not the case initialize eval with some values. There is
no measurable speed-difference on my computer.
Non functional change.
If the opponent has a cramped position, opening a file often
helps him/her to exchange pieces, so it makes sense to reduce
the space bonus if there are open files.
Credits: Leonardo Ljubičić for the strategic idea, Alain Savard for the
implementation of the open files calculation, "CrunchyNYC" for the
compensation of the numerator.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 49112 W: 9239 L: 8900 D: 30973
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 89415 W: 12014 L: 11601 D: 65800
Bench: 7591630
This greately simplifies usage because hides to the
search the implementation specific CheckInfo.
This is based on the work done by Marco in pull request #716,
implementing on top of it the ideas in the discussion: caching
the calls to slider_blockers() in the CheckInfo structure,
and simplifying the slider_blockers() function by removing its
first parameter.
Compared to master, bench is identical but the number of calls
to slider_blockers() during bench goes down from 22461515 to 18853422,
hopefully being a little bit faster overall.
archlinux, gcc-6
make profile-build ARCH=x86-64-bmi2
50 runs each
bench:
base = 2356320 +/- 981
test = 2403811 +/- 981
diff = 47490 +/- 1828
speedup = 0.0202
P(speedup > 0) = 1.0000
perft 6:
base = 175498484 +/- 429925
test = 183997959 +/- 429925
diff = 8499474 +/- 469401
speedup = 0.0484
P(speedup > 0) = 1.0000
perft 7 (but only 10 runs):
base = 185403228 +/- 468705
test = 188777591 +/- 468705
diff = 3374363 +/- 476687
speedup = 0.0182
P(speedup > 0) = 1.0000
$ ./pyshbench ../Stockfish/master ../Stockfish/test 20
run base test diff
...
base = 2501728 +/- 182034
test = 2532997 +/- 182034
diff = 31268 +/- 5116
speedup = 0.0125
P(speedup > 0) = 1.0000
No functional change.
