Add a bonus according if the attacking
pieces are minor or major.
Passed both short TC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 13142 W: 2625 L: 2483 D: 8034
And long TC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 18059 W: 3031 L: 2844 D: 12184
bench: 7425809
Previously some squares could be "incorrectly" awarded
to a pinned piece.
e.g. in 3k4/1q6/3b4/3Q4/8/5K2/B7/8 b - - 0 1 the black
bishop get 4 squares too many and the white queen gets 6.
Passed both short TC.
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 4871 W: 934 L: 817 D: 3120
And long TC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 38968 W: 6113 L: 5837 D: 27018
bench: 9282549
1/ eval margin and gains removed:
16bit are now free on TT entries, due to the removal of eval margin. may be useful
in the future :) gains removed: use instead by Value(128). search() and qsearch()
are now consistent in this regard.
2/ futility_margin()
linear formula instead of complex (log(depth), movecount) formula.
3/ unify pre & post futility pruning
pre futility pruning used depth < 7 plies, while post futility pruning used
depth < 4 plies. Now it's always depth < 7.
Tested with fixed number of games both at short TC:
ELO: 0.82 +-2.1 (95%) LOS: 77.3%
Total: 40000 W: 7939 L: 7845 D: 24216
And long TC
ELO: 0.59 +-2.0 (95%) LOS: 71.9%
Total: 40000 W: 6876 L: 6808 D: 26316
bench 7243575
1/ eval margin and gains removed:
- gains removed by Value(128): search() and qsearch() now behave consistently!
2/ futility_margin()
- testing showed that there is no added value in this weird (log(depth), movecount)
formula, and a much simpler linear formula is just as good. In fact, it is most
likely better, as it is not yet optimally tuned.
- the new simplified formula also means we get rid of FutilityMargins[], its
initialization code, and more importantly ss->futilityMoveCount, and the hacky
code that updates it throughout the search().
- the current formula gives negative futility margins, and there is a hidden interaction
between the move coutn pruning formula and the futility margin one: what happens is
that MCP is supposed to be triggered before we use the non-sensical negative futility
margins.
3/ unify pre & post futility pruning
- pre futility pruning (what SF calls value based pruning) used depth < 7 plies,
while post futility pruning (what SF calls static null move pruning) used depth < 4 plies.
- also the condition depth < 7 in pre futility pruning was not obvious, and it seemd
to be depth < 16 (futility_margin() returns an infinite value when depth >= 7).
Tested with fixed number of games both at short TC:
ELO: 0.82 +-2.1 (95%) LOS: 77.3%
Total: 40000 W: 7939 L: 7845 D: 24216
And long TC
ELO: 0.59 +-2.0 (95%) LOS: 71.9%
Total: 40000 W: 6876 L: 6808 D: 26316
bench: 10206576
This seems more a material imbalance topic,
anyhow test is good and so patch is applied
as is.
Passed both short TC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 17391 W: 3548 L: 3393 D: 10450
And long TC:
LLR: 3.00 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 34660 W: 5972 L: 5700 D: 22988
bench: 8291883
After 40K games at 60 secs, result is still
not clear, but not a regression against SF 4
After
ELO: 50.11 +-2.1 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 40000 W: 10547 L: 4817 D: 24636
Before
ELO: 49.51 +-2.1 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 40000 W: 10483 L: 4821 D: 24696
So re-apply the patch to avoid to
special-case this one.
bench: 7403882
Due to a strange issue (bug?) the ternary
operator does not return a BitCountType for
icc, so revert to the expression.
The same patch was already applied in
9749f1f14c
Thanks to NssY Wanyonyi for pointing out
this.
No functional change.
This reverts commit 4bc2374450 for
two reasons.
First regression testing shows almost equal
score:
Before the patch:
ELO: 49.75 +-2.5 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 27205 W: 7113 L: 3244 D: 16848
After the patch:
ELO: 48.87 +-2.9 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 20860 W: 5478 L: 2563 D: 12819
Second, and more sensible to me, this patch
increases safe check bonuses to 4 times their
original value (!) and considering:
- Values were already well tuned
- Values are highly critical
- King safety is highly critical, very TC
dependent and very difficult to test
- Our testing coverage is partial (self-testing,
blitz times)
I think is better to be safe than sorry and so
I revert the patch.
bench: 8440524
Passed both short TC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 10466 W: 2087 L: 1953 D: 6426
And long TC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 26334 W: 4540 L: 4310 D: 17484
And also proved stronger than a slightly
different patch, also succesful against master:
https://github.com/mcostalba/Stockfish/commit/dc6830a3b4ed12
But losing against current one in a match
at 60secs with SPRT [-3, 3]:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,3.00]
Total: 44484 W: 7360 L: 7463 D: 29661
bench: 9160831
Good both at short TC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 5448 W: 1133 L: 1012 D: 3303
And at long TC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 40509 W: 6836 L: 6541 D: 27132
bench: 7700683
Instead of current code, give a bonus according to the frontmost
square among candidate + passed pawns.
This is a big simplification that removes a lot of accurate code
substituting it with a statistically based one using the common
'bonus' scheme, leaving to the search to sort out the details.
Results are equivalent but code is much less and, as an added bonus,
we now store candidates bitboard in pawns hash and allow this
info to be used in evaluation. This paves the way to possible
candidate pawns evaluations together with all the other pieces,
as we do for passed.
Patch passed short TC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 16927 W: 3462 L: 3308 D: 10157
Then failed (quite quickly) at long TC
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 8451 W: 1386 L: 1448 D: 5617
But when ran with a conclusive 40K fixed games at 60 secs it proved
almost equivalent to original one.
ELO: 1.08 +-2.0 (95%) LOS: 85.8%
Total: 40000 W: 6739 L: 6615 D: 26646
bench: 3884003
Now that we use pre-increment on enums, it
make sense, for code style uniformity, to
swith to pre-increment also for native types,
although there is no speed difference.
No functional change.
ENABLE_OPERATORS_ON has incorrect definitions of
post-increment and post-decrement operators.
In particularly the returned value is the variable
already incremented/decremented, while instead they
should return the variable _before_ inc/dec.
This has no real effect because are only used in loops
and where the returned value is never used, neverthless
it is wrong. The fix would be to copy the variable to a
dummy, then inc/dec the variable, then return the dummy.
So instead, rename to pre-increment that can be implemented
without the dummy, actually the current implementation
it is already the correct pre-increment, with the only change
to return a reference (an l-value) and not a copy, so
to properly mimic the pre-increment on native integers.
Spotted by Kojirion.
No functional change.
The possible maximum mobility cardinality (plus one in case of
zero squares available) is:
- Knights: max. 8 squares -> max. 9 entries
- Bishops: max. 13 squares -> max. 14 entries
- Rooks: max. 14 squares -> max. 15 entries
- Queen: max. 27 squares -> max. 28 entries
So remove the extra entries in the table.
Spotted by Dariusz Orzechowski.
No functional change.
If our rook is behind a passed pawn, all
squares are defended.
One of the longest tests to pass !
Passed both short TC
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 44560 W: 9518 L: 9281 D: 25761
And long TC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 61348 W: 11618 L: 11192 D: 38538
bench: 3787694
Idea originated from a post of Don Dailey
on talkchess and reported by Eelco.
This is the last succesful attempt of a long
series of trials (as usually happens, the
'idea' alone is not enough).
Passed both short 15secs TC
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 7629 W: 1645 L: 1515 D: 4469
And long 60secs TC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 10218 W: 1932 L: 1775 D: 6511
bench: 4944581
Search::RootColor is a global parameter set
before to start a search, it is not something
trace() should change.
This patch allows to add trace() calls, for
debugging, inside search itself without altering
the bench, and also ensures that the values
returned by trace() and evaluate() are fully
equivalent.
No functional change.
The rounding formula is different between
positive and negative scores due to the
GrainSize/2 term that is asymmetric.
So use truncation instead of rounding. This
guarantees that evaluation is rounded to zero
in the same way for both positive and negative
scores.
Found with position's flip
bench: 4634244
This reverts commit 4b3a0fdab0.
As Gary says: " It failed when I tried it at long TC previously, and only
barely passed this time. Some anecdotal evidence is that it hurts vs other
engines as well (the Lightspeed rating list showed a 16 elo drop from previous
best version - still +- 5 error bars on both, but that's still significant)"
I also agree that if we have some doubts (like in this case) it is better to
be safe than sorry.
bench: 4615572
But still keep the same original
margin for score.
Passed both short TC test
LR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 3710 W: 845 L: 726 D: 2139
And long TC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 57859 W: 10939 L: 10532 D: 36388
bench: 4769737
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
Due to a strange issue (bug?) the ternary
operator does not return a BitCountType for
icc, so revert to the expression used
before bcbc9bfd1f
No functional change.
Here speed up is the name of the game.
Speed up is gained:
- Removing the useless enoughMaterial code
- Limiting trapped rook evaluation to where it counts
Tested at long TC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 10061 W: 1948 L: 1790 D: 6323
bench: 4558173
Here we skip the call to pos.attacks_from<ROOK>(s) in the 98%
of cases, testing the first 2 members first. Unfortunatly
code is a bit triky and not clear. So we give up to the
speed optimization in exchange of more code clarity.
No functional change.
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
