Another attempt at retiring current asymmetric
king evaluation and use a much simpler symmetric
one. As a good side effect we can avoid recalculating
eval after a null move.
Tested in no-regression mode and passed
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 21580 W: 3752 L: 3632 D: 14196
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 18253 W: 2593 L: 2469 D: 13191
And a LTC regression test against SF DD to
verify we don't have regression against
weaker engines due to some kind of 'contempt'
effect:
ELO: 54.69 +-2.1 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 40000 W: 11072 L: 4827 D: 24101
bench: 8205159
There is really little that user can achieve (apart
from a weakened engine) tweaking these parameters
that are already tuned and have no immediate or visible
effect.
So better do not expose them to the user and avoid the
typical "What is the best setup for my machine?" kind of
question (by far the most common, by far the most useless).
No functional change.
Retire current asymmetric king evaluation
and use a much simpler symmetric one.
As a side effect retire the infamous
'Aggressiveness' and 'Cowardice' UCI
options.
Tested in no-regression mode,
Passed both STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 33855 W: 5863 L: 5764 D: 22228
And LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40571 W: 5852 L: 5760 D: 28959
bench: 8321835
Unfortunatly we have a slow down that causes
a regression in STC with no-regression mode:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 22454 W: 3836 L: 4029 D: 14589
bench: 8678654
In the (rare) cases when the two conditions
are true, then fully check again with a slow
but correct MoveList<LEGAL>(pos).size().
This is able to detect false positives like
this one:
8/8/8/Q7/5k1p/5P2/4KP2/8 b - - 0 17
When we have a possible simple pawn push that
is not stored in attacks[] array. Because the
third condition triggers very rarely, even if
it is slow, it does not alters in a measurable
way the average speed of the engine.
bench: 8678654
Currently a stealmate position is misevaluated
in a negative/positive score, this leads qsearch(),
that does not detects stealmates too, to return the
wrong score and this yields to some kind of endgames
to be completely misevaluated.
With this patch is fully fixed follwing position
7k/6p1/6B1/5K1P/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
Also in SMP case.
Correct root cause analysys by Ronald de Man.
bench: 8678654
Intel compiler is very picky:
"error: this operation on an enumerated type requires an
applicable user-defined operator function"
Reported by Tony Gaor.
No functional change.
Put the division at the end to reduce
rounding errors. This alters the bench
due to different rounding errors, but
should not alter ELO in any way.
bench: 7615217
Prefer
file_of(s) < file_of(ksq)
to the inidrect
file_of(ksq) < FILE_E
To evaluate if semiopen side to check is the left side.
Also other small touches while there.
No functional change.
Reshuffle functions to define them in reverse
calling order (C style).
This allow us to define templates before they are
used. Currently it is not like this, for instance
evaluate_pieces is defined after do_evaluate that
calls it. This happens to work for some strange
reason (two phase lookup?) but we want to avoid
code that works 'by magic'.
As a nice side-effect we can now remove the function
prototypes.
No functional change.
This is more consistent with what other engines are doing.
Often people thinks that SF's scores are overblown. In the
end, it just boils down to the arbitrary way of rescaling them.
No functional change.
Small simplification.
Passed SPRT(-3,1) both at STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17051 W: 3132 L: 3005 D: 10914
and LTC:
LLR: 4.55 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 24890 W: 3842 L: 3646 D: 17402
The rationale behind this is that I've never managed to add a
Queen on 7th rank bonus in DiscoCheck, because it never showed
to be positive (evne slightly) in testing. The only thing that
worked is Rook on 7th rank.
In terms of SF code, it seemed natural to group it with QueenOnPawn
as well as those are done together. I know you're against groupping
in general, but when it comes to non regression test, you are being
more conservative by groupping. If the group passes SPRT(-3,1) it's
safer to commit, than test every component in SPRT(-3,1) and end up
with the risk of commiting several -1 elo regression instead of just
one -1 elo regression.
In chess terms, perhaps it's just easier to manouver a Queen (which
can more also diagonaly) than a Rook. Therefore you can let the search
do its job without needing eval ad-hoc terms to guide it. For the Rook
which takes more moves to manouver such eval terms can be (marginally)
useful.
bench: 7473314
We chose this instead of negamax sign convention
(ie. from the point of view of the side to move)
because it is more in line to how the eval
table is presented.
Also some tweak to formatting while there.
No functional change.
