Function calloc() already initializes memory to
zero, so avoid calling clear() afterwards.
Also some renaming while there (inspired by DiscoCheck).
No functional change.
So when we are doing a LMR search at the parent ALL node.
This patch didn't prove stronger at 60" TC
LLR: -2.97 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 22398 W: 4070 L: 4060 D: 14268
But, first, it scores at 50%, second (and most important for me) the opposite,
i.e. normal reduction when parent node is not reduced, seems very bad:
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 7036 W: 1446 L: 1534 D: 4056
According to Don, this idea of increased reduction of CUT nodes
works because if parent node is reduced, missing a cut-off due to
reduced depth search (meaning position is somehow tricky) forces
a full depth research at parent node, giving due insight in this
set of sensible positions.
IOW if we expect a node to fail-high at depth n, then we assume it
should fail-high also at depth n-1, if this doesn't happen it means
position is tricky enough to deserve a research at depth n+1.
bench: 4687419
We got a good result from this tweak, in line with
what was already found by Don Dailey.
At short TC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 13097 W: 2742 L: 2598 D: 7757
At long TC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 7281 W: 1408 L: 1265 D: 4608
bench: 5108393
Follow Don Dailey definition of cut/all node:
"If the previous node was a cut node, we consider this an ALL node.
The only exception is for PV nodes which are a special case of ALL nodes.
In the PVS framework, the first zero width window searched from a PV
node is by our definition a CUT node and if you have to do a re-search
then it is suddenly promoted to a PV nodes (as per PVS search) and only
then can the cut and all nodes swap positions. In other words, these
internal search failures can force the status of every node in the subtree
to swap if it propagates back to the last PV nodes."
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=519741&t=47577
With this definition we have an hit rate higher than 90% on:
if (!PvNode && depth > 4 * ONE_PLY)
dbg_hit_on_c(cutNode, (bestValue >= beta));
And an hit rate of just 28% on:
if (!PvNode && depth > 4 * ONE_PLY)
dbg_hit_on_c(!cutNode, (bestValue >= beta));
No functional change.
Fix was wrong becuase search starts from ss+1,
code is a bit tricky here, so rewrite in a way
to be more easy to read and understand.
Spotted by Eelco.
No functional change.
In case of we pick a sub-optimal move be
sure to print this, and not the best one
on seach log file.
Bug spotted by Guenther Demetz.
No functional change.
This patch is the sum of:
- Grainsize of 4 instead of 8
- Removing "depth < DEPTH_ZERO"
- Change DEPTH_QS_RECAPTURES = -5 to -7
All the patches individually failed to pass SPRT but scored
around 50%.
Together they pass easily short TC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 4429 W: 964 L: 844 D: 2621
And with some difficult long TC of 60+0.05:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 64133 W: 11968 L: 11532 D: 40633
bench: 4821467
Add MOVE_NONE at the tail, this allows to loop
across MoveList checking for *it != MOVE_NONE,
and because *it is used imediately after compiler
is able to reuse it.
With this small patch perft speed increased of 3%
And it is also a semplification !
No functional change.
Don't update refutation table in case of
previous move is MOVE_NULL or MOVE_NONE
and don't try refutation if is already
a killer move.
Pass both short TC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 4310 W: 953 L: 869 D: 2488
And long one
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 6707 W: 1254 L: 1184 D: 4269
bench: 4785954
Very good result both at short TC 15+0.05
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 2803 W: 596 L: 483 D: 1724
And at long TC 60+0.05
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 2862 W: 548 L: 431 D: 1883
bench: 4329221
This info is normally printed together with
PV info in uci_pv() but when search is stopped,
for instance when max search time is reached,
uci_pv is not called and we miss this bits.
Suggested by gravy_train
No functional change.
This fixes an assert while testing with debug on.
Assert was due to static null pruning returning value
eval - futility_margin(depth, (ss-1)->futilityMoveCount)
That was sometimes higher than VALUE_INFINITE triggering
an assert at the caller site.
Because eval con be equal to ttValue and anyhow is read from
TT that can be corrupted in SMP case, we need to sanity
check it before to use.
bench: 4176431
Crash is due to uninitialized ss->futilityMoveCount that
when happens to be negative, yields to an out of range
access in futility_margin().
Bug is subtle because it shows itself only in SMP case.
Indeed in single thread mode we only use the
Stack ss[MAX_PLY_PLUS_2];
Allocated at the begin of id_loop() and due to pure
(bad) luck, it happens that for all the MAX_PLY_PLUS_2
elements, ss[i].futilityMoveCount >= 0
Note that the patch does not prevent futilityMoveCount
to be overwritten after, for instance singular search
or null verification, but to keep things readable and
because the effect is almost unmeasurable, we here
prefer a slightly incorrect but simpler patch.
bench: 4311634
Instead of a pointer. This should fix the issue of
remaining with a stale pointer when for instance calling
IID, but also null search verification, singular search
and razoring where we call search with the same ss
pointer. In this case ss->ei is overwritten in the
search() call and upon returning remains stale.
This patch could have a performance hit because Eval::Info
is big (176 bytes) and during splitting we copy 4 ss entries.
On the good side, this patch is a clean solution.
Proposed by Gary.
No functional change.
Allow to use EvalInfo struct, populated by
evaluation(), in search.
In particular we allocate Eval::Info on the stack
and pass a pointer to this to evaluate().
Also add to Search::Stack a pointer to Eval::Info,
this allows to reference eval info of previous/next
nodes.
WARNING: Eval::Info is NOT initialized and is populated
by evaluate(), only if the latter is called, and this
does not happen in all the code paths, so care should be
taken when accessing this struct.
No functional change.
The idea is to fail high more easily in static
null test if in the parent node we are already
very deep in the move list, so the propability
to fail high there is very low.
[edit: I have slightly changed the functionality
moving
ss->futilityMoveCount = moveCount;
At the end of the pruning code, this should not affect
ELO in anyway, but makes code more natural and logic]
Test with SPRT is good at 15+0.05
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 50653 W: 10024 L: 9780 D: 30849
And at 60+0.05
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 40799 W: 7227 L: 6921 D: 26651
bench: 4530093
It seems stronger both at fast 15+0.05 TC with fixed game number test:
ELO: 2.74 +-2.7 (95%) LOS: 97.6%
Total: 24000 W: 4698 L: 4509 D: 14793
And also at long 60+0.05 TC with SPRT
LLR: 3.05 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 38986 W: 6845 L: 6547 D: 25594
bench: 5157061
Use an optinal argument instead of a template
parameter. Interestingly, not only is simpler,
but also faster, perhaps due to less L1 instruction
cache pressure because we don't duplicate the very
used SEE code path.
No functional change.
Increasing depth limit to 10 plies seems stronger
after 16K games at 15"+0.05 (ELO: +3.56) and also
repeating the test at 60"+0.05 TC:
ELO: 2.08 +-3.1 (95%) LOS: 90.9%
Total: 16000 W: 2641 L: 2545 D: 10814
Moreover setting the limit to 12 is proved stronger
then limit set to 10 by direct SPRT test at 15"+0.05:
ELO: 2.56 +-2.0 (95%) LOS: 99.5%
Total: 46568 W: 9240 L: 8897 D: 28431
So we directly set the limit to 12, the strongest setup.
bench: 4361224
Master IID formula is depth / 2
Previous patch is depth - 4 * ONE_PLY
This one is the middle way:
(dept/2 + depth-4*ONE_PLY)/2 -> depth-2*ONE_PLY-depth/4
After 16000 games at 60+0.05 th 1
ELO: 4.08 +-3.1 (95%) LOS: 99.5%
Total: 16000 W: 2742 L: 2554 D: 10704
bench: 4781239
Same idea of 5af8179647
in qsearch() but applied to search()
After 15500 games at 15+0.05
ELO: 4.48 +-3.4 (95%) LOS: 99.5%
Total: 15500 W: 3061 L: 2861 D: 9578
bench: 4985829
Always before pruning the move, it's important to check that:
bestValue > VALUE_MATED_IN_MAX_PLY
See example position:
8/2p1p3/P1NpP3/3k4/1P1BN3/2P1P3/2Q5/6K1 w - - 0 1
http://support.stockfishchess.org/discussions/problems/268-wrong-declaring-a-forced-mate-in-3-moves
This problem was present in 2.3.1, then it was fixed by my patch.
After 24000 games at 15+0.05
ELO: 2.40 +-4.4 (95%) LOS: 95.7%
Total: 24000 W: 4774 L: 4608 D: 14618
bench: 4465997
