This patch corrects both MultiPV behaviour and "go searchmoves" behaviour
for tablebases.
We change the logic of table base probing at root positions from filtering
to ranking. The ranking code is much more straightforward than the current
filtering code (this is a simplification), and also more versatile.
If the root is a TB position, each root move is probed and assigned a TB score
and a TB rank. The TB score is the Value to be displayed to the user for that
move (unless the search finds a mate score), while the TB rank determines which
moves should appear higher in a multi-pv search. In game play, the engine will
always pick a move with the highest rank.
Ranks run from -1000 to +1000:
901 to 1000 : TB win
900 : normally a TB win, in rare cases this could be a draw
1 to 899 : cursed TB wins
0 : draw
-1 to -899 : blessed TB losses
-900 : normally a TB loss, in rare cases this could be a draw
-901 to -1000 : TB loss
Normally all winning moves get rank 1000 (to let the search pick the best
among them). The exception is if there has been a first repetition. In that
case, moves are ranked strictly by DTZ so that the engine will play a move
that lowers DTZ (and therefore cannot repeat the position a second time).
Losing moves get rank -1000 unless they have relatively high DTZ, meaning
they have some drawing chances. Those get ranks towards -901 (when they
cross -900 the draw is certain).
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1467
No functional change (without tablebases).
This patch introduces an Analysis Contempt UCI combo box to control
the behaviour of contempt during analysis. The possible values are
Both, Off, White, Black. Technically, the engine is supposed to be in
analysis mode if UCI_AnalyseMode is set by the graphical user interface
or if the user has chosen infinite analysis mode ("go infinite").
Credits: the idea for the combo box is due to Michel Van den Bergh.
No functional change (outside analysis mode).
-----------------------------------------------------
The so-called "contempt" is an optimism value that the engine adds
to one color to avoid simplifications and keep tension in the position
during its search. It was introduced in Stockfish 9 and seemed to give
good results during the TCEC 11 tournament (Stockfish seemed to play a
little bit more actively than in previous seasons).
The patch does not change the play during match or blitz play, but gives
more options for correspondance players to decide for which color(s) they
would like to use contempt in analysis mode (infinite time). Here is a
description of the various options:
* Both : in analysis mode, use the contempt for both players (alternating)
* Off : in analysis mode, use the contempt for none of the players
* White : in analysis mode, White will play actively, Black will play passively
* Black : in analysis mode, Black will play actively, White will play passively
This patch adds some documentation and code cleanup to tablebase code.
It took me some time to understand the relation among the differrent
structs, although I have rewrote them fully in the past. So I wrote
some detailed documentation to avoid the same efforts for future readers.
Also noteworthy is the use a standard hash table implementation with a
more efficient 1D array instead of a 2D array. This reduces the average
lookup steps of 90% (from 343 to 38 in a bench 128 1 16 run) and reduces
also the table from 5K to 4K
entries.
I have tested on 5-men and no functional and no slowdown reported. It
should be verified on 6-men that the new hash does not overflow. It is
enough to run ./stockfish with 6-men available: if it does not assert at
startup it means everything is ok with 6-men too.
EDIT: verified for 6-men tablebase by Jörg Oster. Thanks!
No functional change.
We remove an unnecessary condition in the definition of safe squares
in the space evaluation. Only the squares which are occupied by our
pawns or attacked by our opponent's pawns are now excluded.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 21096 W: 4321 L: 4199 D: 12576
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5acbf7510ebc59547e537d4e
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 23437 W: 3577 L: 3460 D: 16400
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5acc0f750ebc59547e537d6a
It may be possible to further refine the definition of such safe squares.
Bench: 5351765
This patch applies a S(10, 5) bonus for every square that is:
- Occupied by an enemy piece which is not a pawn
- Attacked exactly once by our pieces
- Defended exactly once by enemy pieces
The idea is that these pieces must be defended. Their defenders have
dramatically limited mobility, and they are vulnerable to our future
attack.
As with connectivity, there are probably many more tests to be run in
this area. In particular:
- I believe @snicolet's queen overload tests have demonstrated a potential
need for a queen overload bonus above and beyond this one; however, the
conditions for "overload" in this patch are different (excluding pieces
we attack twice). My next test after this is (hopefully) merged will be
to intersect the Bitboard I define here with the enemy's queen attacks and
attempt to give additional bonus.
- Perhaps we should exclude pieces attacked by pawns--can pawns really be
overloaded? Should they have the same weight, or less? This didn't work
with a previous version, but it could work with this one.
- More generally, different pieces may need more or less bonus. We could
change bonuses based on what type of enemy piece is being overloaded, what
type of friendly piece is attacking, and/or what type of piece is being
defended by the overloaded piece and attacked by us, or any intersection
of these three. For example, here attacked/defended pawns are excluded,
but they're not totally worthless targets, and could be added again with
a smaller bonus.
- This list is by no means exhaustive.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 17439 W: 3599 L: 3390 D: 10450
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac78a2e0ebc59435923735e
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 43304 W: 6533 L: 6256 D: 30515
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac7a1d80ebc59435923736f
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1533
Bench: 5248871
----------------
This is my first time opening a PR, so I apologize if there are errors.
There are too many people to thank since I submitted my first test just
over a month ago. Thank you all for the warm welcome and here is to more
green patches!
In particular, I would like to thank:
- @crossbr, whose comment in a FishCooking thread first inspired me to
consider the overloading of pieces other than queens,
- @snicolet, whose queen overload tests inspired this one and served as
the base of my first overload attempts,
- @protonspring, whose connectivity tests inspired this one and who provided
much of the feedback needed to take this from red to green,
- @vondele, who kindly corrected me when I submitted a bad LTC test,
- @Rocky640, who has helped me over and over again in the past month.
Thank you all!
In master, we already remove the King from the mobility area of minor pieces
because the King simply stands in the way of other pieces, and since opponent
cannot capture the King, any piece which "protects" the King cannot recapture.
Similarly, this patch introduces the idea that it is rarely a need for a Queen
to be "protected" by a minor (unless it is attacked only by a Queen, in fact).
We used to have a LoosePiece bonus, and in a similar vein the Queen was excluded
from that penalty.
Idea came when reviewing an old game of Kholmov. He was a very good midgame
player, but in the opening his misplace his Queen (and won in the end :-) :
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1134645
Both white queen moves 10.Qd3 and 13.Qb3 are in the way of some minor piece.
I would prefer to not give a bishop mobility bonus at move 10 for the square d3,
or later a knight mobility bonus at move 13 for the square b3. And the textbook
move is 19.Qe3! which prepares 20.Nb3. This short game sample shows how much a
queen can be "in the way" of minor pieces.
STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac2c15f0ebc591746423fa3
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 22066 W: 4561 L: 4330 D: 13175
LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac2d6500ebc591746423faf
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 25871 W: 3953 L: 3738 D: 18180
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1532
Ideas for future work in this area:
• tweak some more mobility areas for other piece type.
• construct a notion of global mobility for the whole piece set.
• bad bishops.
Bench: 4989125
Simplify ThreatBySafePawn evaluation by removing the 'if (weak)' speed
optimization check from threats evaluation. This is a non functional
change as it removes just a speed optimization conditional which was
probably useful before but does no longer provide benefits. This section
section had a few more lines not long ago, with ThreatByHangingPawn and
a loop through the threatened pieces, but now there is not much left.
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 47775 W: 9696 L: 9624 D: 28455
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac298910ebc591746423f8b
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1531
Non functional change.
1) Use make_bitboard() in Bitboards::init()
2) Fix MSVC warning: search.h(85): warning C4244: '=': conversion from
'TimePoint' to 'int', possible loss of data.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1524
No functional change.
When we reach a position with only two opposite colored bishops and
one pawn on the board, current master would give it a scale factor
of 9/64=0.14 in about one position out of 7200, and a scale factor
of 0.0 in the 7199 others. The patch gives a scale factor of 0.0 in
100% of the cases.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 55845 W: 11467 L: 11410 D: 32968
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5abc585f0ebc5902926cf15e
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 11915 W: 1852 L: 1719 D: 8344
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5abc7f750ebc5902926cf18c
We also have exhaustive coverage analysis of this patch effect by
Alain Savard, comparing the perfect evaluation given by the Syzygy
tablebase with the heuristic play after this patch for the set of
all legal positions of the KBPKP endgame with opposite bishops, in
the comments thread for this pull request:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1520
Alain's conclusion:
> According to this definition and the data, I consider this PR is
> identical to master to "solve for draw" and slightly better than
> master to solve earlier for "wins".
Note: this patch is a side effect of an ongoing effort to improve
the evaluation of positions involving a pair of opposite bishops.
See the GitHub diff of this LTC test which almost passed at sprt[0..5]
for a discussion:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab9030b0ebc5902932cbf93
No functional change (at small bench depths)
Include some not fully supported levers in the (candidate) passed pawns
bitboard, if otherwise unblocked. Maybe levers are usually very short
lived, and some inaccuracy in the lever balance for the definition of
candidate passed pawns just triggers a deeper search.
Here is a example of a case where the patch has an effect on the definition
of candidate passers: White c5/e5 pawns, against Black d6 pawn. Let's say
we want to test if e5 is a candidate passer. The previous master looks
only at files d, e and f (which is already very good) and reject e5 as
a candidate. However, the lever d6 is challenged by 2 pawns, so it should
not fully count. Indirectly, this patch will view such case (and a few more)
to be scored as candidates.
STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5abcd55d0ebc5902926cf1e1
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 16492 W: 3419 L: 3198 D: 9875
LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5abce1360ebc5902926cf1e6
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 21156 W: 3201 L: 2990 D: 14965
This was inspired by this test of Jerry Donald Watson, except the case of
zero supporting pawns against two levers is excluded, and it seems that
not excluding that case is bad, while excluding is it beneficial. See the
following tests on fishtest:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1519http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5abccd850ebc5902926cf1ddhttp://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5abcdd490ebc5902926cf1e4
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1521
Bench: 5568461
----
Comments by Jerry Donald Watson:
> My thinking as to why this works:
>
> The evaluation is either called in an interior node or in the qsearch.
> The calls at the end of the qsearch are the more important as they
> ultimately determine the scoring of each move, whereas the internal
> values are mainly used for pruning decisions with a margin. Some strong
> engines don't even call the eval at all nodes. Now the whole point of
> the qsearch is to find quiet positions where captures do not change the
> evaluation of the position with regards to the search bounds - i.e. if
> there were good captures they would be tried.* So when a candidate lever
> appears in the evaluation at the end of the qsearch, the qsearch has
> guaranteed that it cannot just be captured, or if it can, this does not
> take the score past the search bounds. Practically this may mean that
> the side with the candidate lever has the turn, or perhaps the stopping
> lever pawn is pinned, or that side is forced for other reasons to make
> some other move (e.g. d6 can only take one of the pawns in the example
> above).
>
> Hence granting the full score for only one lever defender makes some
> sense, at least, to me.
>
> IMO this is also why huge bonuses for possible captures in the evaluation
> (e.g. threat on queen and our turn), etc. don't tend to work. Such things
> are best left to the search to figure out.
We now use per-thread dynamic contempt. This patch has the following
effects:
* for Threads=1: **non-functional**
* for Threads>1:
* with MultiPV=1: **no regression, little to no ELO gain**
* with MultiPV>1: **clear improvement over master**
First, I tried testing at standard MultiPV=1 play with [0,5] bounds.
This yielded 2 yellow and 1 red test:
5+0.05, Threads=5:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 82689 W: 16439 L: 16190 D: 50060
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa93a5a0ebc5902952892e6
5+0.05, Threads=8:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 27164 W: 4974 L: 4983 D: 17207
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab2639b0ebc5902a6fbefd5
5+0.5, Threads=16:
LLR: -2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 41396 W: 7127 L: 7082 D: 27187
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab124220ebc59029516cb62
Then, I tested with Skill Level=17 (implicitly MutliPV=4), showing
a clear improvement:
5+0.05, Threads=5:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 3498 W: 1316 L: 1135 D: 1047
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab4b6580ebc5902932aeca2
Next, I tested the patch with MultiPV=1 again, this time checking for
non-regression ([-3, 1]):
5+0.5, Threads=5:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 65575 W: 12786 L: 12745 D: 40044
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab4e8500ebc5902932aecb3
Finally, I ran some tests with fixed number of games, checking if
reverting dynamic contempt gains more elo with Skill Level=17 (i.e.
MultiPV) than applying the "prevScore" fix and this patch. These tests
showed, that this patch gains 15 ELO when playing with Skill Level=17:
5+0.05, Threads=3, "revert dynamic contempt" vs. "WITHOUT this patch":
ELO: -11.43 +-4.1 (95%) LOS: 0.0%
Total: 20000 W: 7085 L: 7743 D: 5172
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab636450ebc590295d88536
5+0.05, Threads=3, "revert dynamic contempt" vs. "WITH this patch":
ELO: -26.42 +-4.1 (95%) LOS: 0.0%
Total: 20000 W: 6661 L: 8179 D: 5160
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab62e680ebc590295d88524
---
***FAQ***
**Why should this be commited?**
I believe that the gain for multi-thread MultiPV search is a sufficient
justification for this otherwise neutral change. I also believe this
implementation of dynamic contempt is more logical, although this may
be just my opinion.
**Why is per-thread contempt better at MultiPV?**
A likely explanation for the gain in MultiPV mode is that during
search each thread independently switches between rootMoves and via
the shared contempt score skews each other's evaluation.
**Why were the tests done with Skill Level=17?**
This was originally suggested by @Hanamuke and the idea is that with
Skill Level Stockfish sometimes plays also moves it thinks are slightly
sub-optimal and thus the quality of all moves offered by the MultiPV
search is checked by the test.
**Why are the ELO differences so huge?**
This is most likely because of the nature of Skill Level mode --
since it slower and weaker than normal mode, bugs in evaluation have
much greater effect.
---
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1515.
No functional change -- in single thread mode.
Extends valgrind/sanitizer testing to cover syzygy code.
The script downloads 4 man syzygy as needed. The time needed for the
additional testing is small (in fact hard to see a difference compared
to the large fluctuations in testing time in travis).
Possible follow-ups:
* include more TB sensitive positions in bench.
* include the test script of recent commit "Refactor tbprobe.cpp".
* verify unchanged bench with TB (with a long run).
* make the TB part of the continuation integration tests optional.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1518
and https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1490
No functional change.
Adjust criterion for applying extra reduction if not improving.
We now add an extra ply of reduction if r > 1.0, instead of the
previous condition Reductions[NonPV][imp][d][mc] >= 2.
Why does this work? Previously, reductions when not improving had
a discontinuity as the depth and/or move count increases due to the
Reductions[NonPV][imp][d][mc] >= 2 condition. Hence, values of r
such that 0.5 < r < 1.5 would be mapped to a reduction of 1, while
1.5 < r < 2.5 would be mapped to a reduction of 3. This patch allows
values of r satisfying 1.0 < r < 1.5 to be mapped to a reduction of 2,
making the reduction formula more continuous.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 35908 W: 7382 L: 7087 D: 21439
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aba723a0ebc5902a4743e8f
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 23087 W: 3584 L: 3378 D: 16125
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aba89070ebc5902a4743ea9
Ideas for future work:
- We could look at retuning the LMR formula.
- We could look at adjusting the reductions in PV nodes if not improving.
Bench: 5326261
Use rootMoves[PVIdx].previousScore instead of bestValue for
dynamic contempt. This is equivalent for MultiPV=1 (bench remained the
same, even for higher depths), but more correct for MultiPV.
STC (MultiPV=3):
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 2657 W: 1079 L: 898 D: 680
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aaa47cb0ebc590297330403
LTC (MultiPV=3):
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 2390 W: 874 L: 706 D: 810
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aaa593a0ebc59029733040b
VLTC 240+2.4 (MultiPV=3):
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 2399 W: 861 L: 694 D: 844
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aaf983e0ebc5902a182131f
LTC (MultiPV=4, Skill Level=17):
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 747 W: 333 L: 175 D: 239
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aabccee0ebc5902997ff006
Note: although the ELO differences seem huge, they are inflated by the
nature of Skill Level / MultiPV search, so I don't think they can be
reasonably compared with classic ELO strength.
See https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1491 for some
verifications searches with MultiPV = 10 at depths 12 and 24 from the
starting position and the position after 1.e4, comparing the outputs
of the full PV by the old master and by this patch.
No functional change for MultiPV=1
This involves:
* replacing the union hacks with simply reusing the EntryPiece arrays
for the no-pawns case
* merging the PairsData structure with the EntryPiece/-Pawn structs
(with credit to Marco: @mcostalba)
* simplifying some HashTable functions
* thanks to previous changes, removing the ugly memsets
* simplifying the template logic for WDL/DTZ distinction
(now we distinguish based on an enum type, not the entry classes)
* removing the unneeded Atomic wrapper
-----------------------------
For reference, here is a manual way to check that patches concerning
table bases code are non-functional changes:
0) Download the Syzygy table bases (up to 6 men).
1) Make sure you have branches master and the pull request pointing to
the right commits.
2) Download the bench calculation scripts from the following URL:
https://gist.github.com/WOnder93/b5fcf9c989b4a1715684d5c82367cdbe
and copy into src inside your Stockfish repo.
3) Make the scripts executable (chmod +x *.sh).
4) Run the following command to use TBs located at <path>:
export SYZYGY_PATH='<path>'
5) After that, run this (it will take a long time, this is a deep bench):
BENCH_ARGS='128 1 22' ./check_benches.sh master tbprobe_cleanup 2>/dev/null`
==> You should see two equal numbers printed.
(Of course, now we have to trust that the script itself is correct :)
-----------------------------
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1477
No functional change.
This is a patch to fix issue #1498, switching the time management variables
to 64 bits to avoid overflow of time variables after 25 days.
There was a bug in Stockfish 9 causing the output to be wrong after
2^31 milliseconds search. Here is a long run from the starting position:
info depth 64 seldepth 87 multipv 1 score cp 23 nodes 13928920239402
nps 0 tbhits 0 time -504995523 pv g1f3 d7d5 d2d4 g8f6 c2c4 d5c4 e2e3 e7e6 f1c4
c7c5 e1g1 b8c6 d4c5 d8d1 f1d1 f8c5 c4e2 e8g8 a2a3 c5e7 b2b4 f8d8 b1d2 b7b6 c1b2
c8b7 a1c1 a8c8 c1c2 c6e5 d1c1 c8c2 c1c2 e5f3 d2f3 a7a5 b4b5 e7c5 f3d4 d8c8 d4b3
c5d6 c2c8 b7c8 b3d2 c8b7 d2c4 d6c5 e2f3 b7d5 f3d5 e6d5 c4e5 a5a4 e5d3 f6e4 d3c5
e4c5 b2d4 c5e4 d4b6 e4d6 g2g4 d6b5 b6c5 b5c7 g1g2 c7e6 c5d6 g7g6
We check at compile time that the TimePoint type is exactly 64 bits long for
the compiler (TimePoint is our alias in Stockfish for std::chrono::milliseconds
-- it is a signed integer type of at least 45 bits according to the C++ standard,
but will most probably be implemented as a 64 bits signed integer on modern
compilers), and we use this TimePoint type consistently across the code.
Bug report by user "fischerandom" on the TCEC chat (thanks), and the
patch includes code and suggestions by user "WOnder93" and Ronald de Man.
Fixes issue: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/1498
Closes pull request: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1510
No functional change.
Make kingRing always eight squares, extending the bitboard to the
F file if the king is on the H file, and to the C file if the king
is on the A file. This may deal with cases where Stockfish (like
many other engines) would shift the king around on the back rank
like g1h1, not because there is some imminent threat, but because
it makes king safety look a little better just because the king ring
had a smaller area.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 34000 W: 7167 L: 6877 D: 19956
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab8216d0ebc5902932cbe64
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 22574 W: 3576 L: 3370 D: 15628
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab84e6a0ebc5902932cbe72
How to continue from there?
This patch probably makes it easier to tune the king safety evaluation,
because the new regularity of the king ring size will make the king
safety function more continuous.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1512
Bench: 5934103
Rewrite the MovePicker class using lambda expressions for move filtering.
Includes code style changes by @mcostalba.
Verified for speed, passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 43191 W: 9391 L: 9312 D: 24488
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a99b9df0ebc590297cc8f04
This rewrite of MovePicker.cpp seems to trigger less random crashes on Ryzen
machines than the version in previous master (reported by Bojun Guo).
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1454
No functional change.
To more clearly distinguish them from "const" local variables, this patch
defines compile-time local constants as constexpr. This is consistent with
the definition of PvNode as constexpr in search() and qsearch(). It also
makes the code more robust, since the compiler will now check that those
constants are indeed compile-time constants.
We can go even one step further and define all the evaluation and search
compile-time constants as constexpr.
In generate_castling() I replaced "K" with "step", since K was incorrectly
capitalised (in the Chess960 case).
In timeman.cpp I had to make the non-local constants MaxRatio and StealRatio
constepxr, since otherwise gcc would complain when calculating TMaxRatio and
TStealRatio. (Strangely, I did not have to make Is64Bit constexpr even though
it is used in ucioption.cpp in the calculation of constexpr MaxHashMB.)
I have renamed PieceCount to pieceCount in material.h, since the values of
the array are not compile-time constants.
Some compile-time constants in tbprobe.cpp were overlooked. Sides and MaxFile
are not compile-time constants, so were renamed to sides and maxFile.
Non-functional change.
Implements renaming suggestions by Marco Costalba, Günther Demetz,
Gontran Lemaire, Ronald de Man, Stéphane Nicolet, Alain Savard,
Joost VandeVondele, Jerry Donald Watson, Mike Whiteley, xoto10,
and I hope that I haven't forgotten anybody.
Perpetual renaming thread for suggestions:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/1426
No functional change.
If search depth is less than ONE_PLY call qsearch(), no need to check the
depth condition at various call sites of search().
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 14568 W: 3011 L: 2877 D: 8680
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa846190ebc59029781015b
Also helps gcc to find some optimizations (smaller binary, some speedup).
Thanks to Aram and Stefan for identifying an oversight in an early version.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1487
No functional change.
The NO_BSF does not cover any real life use-case today. The only compilers that
can compile SF today, with the current Makefile and no source code changes, are
either GCC compatible (define __GNUC__) or MSVC compatible (define _MSC_VER). So
they all support LSB/MSB intrinsics.
This patch simplifies away the software fall-backs of LSB/MSB that were still
in Stockfish code, but unused in any of the officially supported compilers.
Note the (legacy) MSVC/WIN32 case, where we use a 32-bit BSF/BSR solution, as
64-bit intrinsics aren't available there.
Discussed in: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1447
and: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1479
No functional change.
Adjust ProbCut rBeta by whether the score is improving, and also
set improving to false when in check. More precisely, this patch
has two parts:
1) the increased beta threshold for ProbCut is now adjusted based
on whether the score is improving
2) when in check, improving is always set to false.
Co-authored by Joost VandeVondele (@vondele) and Bill Henry (@VoyagerOne).
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 13480 W: 2840 L: 2648 D: 7992
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa693fe0ebc59029781004c
LTC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 25895 W: 4099 L: 3880 D: 17916
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa6ac940ebc59029781006e
In terms of opportunities for future work opened up by this patch,
the ProbCut rBeta formula could probably be tuned to gain more Elo.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1485
Bench: 5328254
King and pawn endgames are typically decisive, and a small
advantage is often sufficient to win. Therefore we now take
this into account when computing the initiative adjustment.
This idea came from a series of patches by Gian-Carlo Pascutto.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 48770 W: 10203 L: 9845 D: 28722
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa58cce0ebc59029780ff8d
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 22252 W: 3572 L: 3366 D: 15314
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa5b27c0ebc59029780ffad
Ideas for future developement:
- There have been a number of changes to the initiative
calculation lately. Perhaps the coefficients could be
tuned again.
- It may be possible to add special knowledge for other
endgames in the initiative calculation.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1481
Bench: 5750110
"Loose pieces drop, in blitz keep everything protected"
Adding a small S(2,2) bonus for knights, bishops, rooks, and
queens that are "connected" to each other (in the sense that
they are under attack by our own pieces) apparently is a good
thing. It probably helps the pieces work together a bit better.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 12317 W: 2655 L: 2467 D: 7195
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa2d86b0ebc590297cb6474
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 35725 W: 5516 L: 5263 D: 24946
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa2fc6f0ebc590297cb64a8
How to continue from there (by Stefan Geschwentner)?
• First we should identify all other eval terms which have an overlap
with new connectivity bonus (like the outpost bonus). A simple way
would be subtract the connectivity bonus from them and look if this
better, or use a SPSA session for these terms.
• Tuning Connectivity himself with SPSA seems not so promising because
of the small range which is useful. Here manual testing changes of
Connectivity like +-1 seems better.
• The eg value is more important because in endgame the position gets
more open and so attacks on pieces are easier. Another important point
is that when defending/fortress-like positions each defending piece
needs a protection, otherwise attacks on them can break defense.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1474
Bench: 5318575
Avoid duplicated code after recent commit "Use evaluation trend
to adjust futility margin". We initialize the improving variable
to true in the check case, which allows to avoid redundant code
in the general case.
Tested for speed by snicolet, patch seems about 0.4% faster.
No functional change.
Note: initializing the improving variable to false in the check
case was tested as a functional change, ending yellow in both STC
and LTC. This change is not included in the commit, but it is an
interesting result that could become part of a future patch about
improving or LMR. Reference of the LTC yellow test:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa131560ebc590297cb636e
Allow a potential slider threat from a square currently occupied
by a harmless attacker, just as the recent "knight on queen" patch.
Also from not completely safe squares, use the mobilityArea instead
of excluding all pawns for both SlidersOnQueen and KnightOnQueen
We now compute the potential sliders threat on queen only if opponent
has one queen.
Run as SPRT [0,4] since it is some kind of simplification but maybe
not clearly one.
STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa1ddf10ebc590297cb63d8
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 22997 W: 4817 L: 4570 D: 13610
LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa1fe6b0ebc590297cb63e5
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 11926 W: 1891 L: 1705 D: 8330
After this patch is committed, we may try to:
• re-introduce some "threat by queen" bonus to make Stockfish's queen
more aggressive (attacking aspect)
• introduce a concept of "queen overload" to force the opponent queen
into passivity and protecting duties (defensive aspect)
• more generally, re-tune the queen mobility array since patches in the
last three months have affected a lot the location/activity of queens.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1473
bench: 5788691
We give a S(21,11) bonus for knight threats on the next moves
against enemy queen. The threats are from squares which are
"not strongly protected" and which may be empty, contain enemy
pieces or even one of our piece at the moment (N,B,Q,R) -- hence
be two-steps threats in the later case because we will have to
move our piece and *then* attack the enemy queen with the knight.
STC: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9e442e0ebc590297cb6162
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 35129 W: 7346 L: 7052 D: 20731
LTC: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9e6e620ebc590297cb617f
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 42442 W: 6695 L: 6414 D: 29333
How to continue from there?
• Trying to refine the threat condition ("not strongly protected")
• Trying the two-steps idea for bishops or rooks threats against queen
Bench: 6051247
Similar removal of superposition code trick as in the
"Simplify tropism computation" patch. This simplification
of the space() function will allow us to specify space
masks which can reach into enemy territory.
passed STC:
LLR: 3.38 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 184630 W: 40581 L: 40758 D: 103291
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a8433360ebc590297cc80c5
passed LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 231799 W: 37647 L: 37858 D: 156294
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a96a34a0ebc590297cc8cfd
No functional change.
