Now we use a formula to calculate margins on the fly.
Node count has changed because we fixed a leftover when
we still where using FutilityMargins to calculate futilityValue
in the case that we had the evaluation score in TT.
Also small indentation fix.
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
Increase pruning at low depths while tone downa bit at
higher depths (linearize a bit the logaritmic behaviour)
This goes togheter with IncrementalFutilityMargin decreased
to 4 compensate the bigger pruning effect.
Total pruned nodes are more or less the same. We go from 36%
of nodes after prune to 37% with this patch.
After 999 games at 1+0
Mod vs Orig +250 =526 -223 +9 ELO
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
If we arrive until the exclusion search call then
we know that move == ttMove == tte->move()
But using ttMove in search call while, during excluded search
conditions we have used tte->Move()could be a little bit suboptimal.
On the other side using tte->move() also in search call is a bit ugly
so opt for the third choice that is the most clean becasue from the
conditions the reader easily understands that we are talking of ttMove
and that we ant to exclude the move we are evaluating in that moment.
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
If tte->move() != MOVE_NONE then tte->move() == ttMove
What could happen is that we have a ttMove without a tte, or,
we have a tte but tte->move() == MOVE_NONE
No functional change.
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
Due to IID we could have a ttMove and not a tte, or,
even if we have a tte they could belong to different
searches so that the depth and type of tte don't
have the same origin of the ttMove.
To fix this we always use tte entry in excluded search
condition and, after an IID, we reprobe the TT table.
No functional change. Apart from possible crash fix.
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
They gave bad results:
Mod - Orig: 361 - 404
Master is now verified to be functional equivalent with F_63
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
We already reset loseOnTime flag at the beginning of
a new game, so we can simplify a bit the ligic there.
No functional change.
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
* New version is documented and logic should be easier to follow
* Add extra check to not use LSN with x moves / y seconds time control
* New code fixes some rear cases where old code (still) causes program to lose on time at move 1.
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
* The function is called only in one place
* It must not be called elsewhere
* The function call easily replaced with simple one line condition
No functional change (tested with usual set + 2000 random positions)
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
* First one is without any documentation, code is working just fine,
so there seems to be nothing that really should be fixed.
* Second one requesting emergency measures on aspiration fail low
when we are running out of time and we are without good move.
After very long time, I've come to conclusion that this is
impossible to fix, so remove request.
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
Use an exponenital law instead of a linear one for
history pruning.
This should prune more at low depths and a bit less
at high depths.
After 965 games
Mod vs Orig +233 =504 -228 +2 ELO
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
Correct beta by razor margin when callin qsearch
After 1019 games on Joona's QUAD
Mod - Orig: 524 - 495 (+10 elo)
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
Call directly 'perft 6' to search up to depth 6*OnePly
instead of the old 'perft depth 6'.
It is more in line to what other engines do. Also a bit
of cleanup while there.
No functional change.
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
When false (common case) we avoid to update checkers
bitboard that although not so costly slows down a bit
this very hot and critical path.
No functional change.
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
Try an internal iterative deepening not only when we don't
have a TT move but also if search depth is more then 4*OnePly
higher then TT move depth.
On some tests it seems that in around 20% of cases ttMove changes !
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
It is now no more needed to know dc candidates
inside MovePicker, so avoid calculating there.
No functional change.
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
Patch from Joona with extension to benchmark and inclusion
of Depth(0) moves generation by me.
Note that to test also qsearch and in particulary checks
generations a change in the end condition is needed.
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
Small code cleanup and a bit faster too.
The only functional change is that in extension
in pv node we extend promotions and not only captures
when condition met.
This is practically an undetectable change and has
no impact on strenght.
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
Even if SEE is negative there is always a good possibility
that TT move is a cut move anyway. For instance a lot of
BXN exchanges that have negative SEE can very easily be
good exchanges.
A nice side effect is a bit reduced frequency of
see_sign() calls.
After 643 games at 1+0
Mod vs Orig +174 =327 -142 52.49% 337.5/643 +17 ELO
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
Only in less then 2% of cases we have a new sp->bestValue,
so check before to lock and save a costly locking
most of the times.
Patch suggested by Joona.
No functional search.
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
Use futility pruning also in split points.
Do not use history pruning in split points when
getting mated.
After 1000 games on Joona QUAD
Orig - Mod: 496 - 504
Added an optimization to avoid a costly lock in the
very common case that sp->futilityValue <= sp->bestValue.
A test on a dual CPU shows only 114 hits on 23196 events,
so avoid a lock in all the other cases.
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
If after the first tried 2 + int(depth) moves we still
have no any move that takes us out of a mate then do
not prune the following move, it is more important to
escape mate then speed up search.
This fixes an odd behaviour regarding mates, as example
the following diagram is a mate in 4, not in 3 as bogusly
reported before this patch.
1B2n3/8/2R5/5p2/3kp1n1/4p3/B3K3/8 w - - bm #4;
The performance impact should be minimal, the increment
in searched nodes is less then 0.1 %%
Idea and patch by Joona
After 999 games at 1+0
Mod vs Orig +193 =604 -202 -3 ELO
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
In this case we call evaluate() being in check and this
is not allowed.
Bug found testing with reduced PLY_MAX value as suggested
by Miguel A. Ballicora on talkchess.
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
