This is a functional simplification. This is NOT the exact version that was tested. Beyond the testing, an assignment was removed and a piece changes for consistency.
Instead of rewarding ANY square past an opponent pawn as an "outpost," only use squares that are protected by our pawn. I believe this is more consistent with what the chess world calls an "outpost."
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 23540 W: 5387 L: 5269 D: 12884
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cf51e6d0ebc5925cf08b823
LTC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 53085 W: 9271 L: 9204 D: 34610
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cf5279e0ebc5925cf08b992
bench 3424592
Stockfish evaluates passed pawns in part based on a variable k, which shapes the passed pawn bonus based on the number of squares between the current square and promotion square that are attacked by enemy pieces, and the number defended by friendly ones. Prior to this commit, we gave a large bonus when all squares between the pawn and the promotion square were defended, and if they were not, a somewhat smaller bonus if at least the pawn's next square was. However, this distinction does not appear to provide any Elo at STC or LTC.
Where do we go from here? Many promising Elo-gaining patches were attempted in the past few months to refine passed pawn calculation, by altering the definitions of unsafe and defended squares. Stockfish uses these definitions to choose the value of k, so those tests interact with this PR. Therefore, it may be worthwhile to retest previously promising but not-quite-passing tests in the vicinity of this patch.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 42344 W: 9455 L: 9374 D: 23515
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cf83ede0ebc5925cf0904fb
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 69548 W: 11855 L: 11813 D: 45880
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cf8698f0ebc5925cf0908c8
Bench: 3854907
This is a non-functional simplification. Since our file_bb handles either Files or Squares, using Square here removes some code. Not likely any performance difference despite the test.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 6081 W: 1444 L: 1291 D: 3346
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ceb3e2e0ebc5925cf07ab03
Non functional change.
We evaluate defended and unsafe squares for a passed pawn push based on friendly and enemy rooks and queens on the passed pawn's file. Prior to this patch, we further required that these rooks and queens be able to directly attack the passed pawn. However, this restriction appears unnecessary and worth almost exactly 0 Elo at LTC.
The simplified code allows rooks and queens to attack/defend the passed pawn through other pieces of either color.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 29019 W: 6488 L: 6381 D: 16150
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cdcf7270ebc5925cf05d30c
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 54224 W: 9200 L: 9133 D: 35891
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cddc6210ebc5925cf05eca3
Bench: 3415326
This is a non-functional simplification that combines vote counting and thread selecting in the same loop.
It is possible that the best thread would be updated more frequently than master, but I'm not sure it matters here. Perhaps "mostVotes" is a better name than "bestVote?"
STC (stopped early).
LLR: 0.70 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 10714 W: 2329 L: 2311 D: 6074
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ccc71470ebc5925cf03d244
No functional change.
Treat all threads the same as main thread and increment
failedHighCnt on fail highs. This makes the search try
again at lower depth.
@vondele suggested also changing the reset of failedHighCnt
when there is a fail low. Tests including this passed so the
branch has been updated to include both changes. failedHighCnt
is now handled exactly the same in helper threads and the main
thread. Thanks vondele :-)
STC @ 5+0.05 th 4 :
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 7769 W: 1704 L: 1557 D: 4508
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c9f19520ebc5925cfffd2a1
LTC @ 20+0.2 th 8 :
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 37888 W: 5983 L: 5889 D: 26016
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c9f57d10ebc5925cfffd696
Bench 3824325
Similar to PSQT we only need one instance of the Endgames resource. The current per thread copies are identical and read only(after initialization) so from a design point of view it doesn't make sense to have them.
Tested for no slowdown.
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c94377a0ebc5925cfff43ca
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17320 W: 3487 L: 3359 D: 10474
No functional change.
Store repetition info in StateInfo instead of recomputing it in
three different places. This saves some work in has_game_cycle()
where this info is needed for positions before the root.
Tested for non-regression at STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 34104 W: 7586 L: 7489 D: 19029
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cd0676e0ebc5925cf044b56
No functional change.
High rootDepths, selDepths and generally searches are increasingly
common with long time control games, analysis, and improving hardware.
In this case, depths of MAX_DEPTH/MAX_PLY (128) can be reached,
and the search tree is truncated.
In principle MAX_PLY can be easily increased, except for a technicality
of storing depths in a signed 8 bit int in the TT. This patch increases
MAX_PLY by storing the depth in an unsigned 8 bit, after shifting by the
most negative depth stored in TT (DEPTH_NONE).
No regression at STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 42235 W: 9565 L: 9484 D: 23186
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cdb35360ebc5925cf0595e1
Verified to reach high depths on
k1b5/1p1p4/pP1Pp3/K2pPp2/1P1p1P2/3P1P2/5P2/8 w - -
info depth 142 seldepth 154 multipv 1 score cp 537 nodes 26740713110 ...
No bench change.
This functional simplification removes the PvNode reduction and adjusts
the ttPv lmr condition accordingly. Their definitions only differ by the
inclusions of ttPv. Aside from this, shallow move pruning definition
will be the only other functional difference, but this does not seem to
matter too much.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 58908 W: 12980 L: 12932 D: 32996
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cd1aaaa0ebc5925cf046c6a
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 20351 W: 3521 L: 3399 D: 13431
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cd23fa70ebc5925cf047cd2
Bench: 3687854
In master search() may incorrectly return a draw score in the following
corner case: there was a 2-fold repetition during the game, and the
current position can be reached by a move from a repeated one. This case
is treated as an upcoming 3-fold repetition, which it is not.
Here is a testcase demonstrating the issue (note that the moves
after FEN are required). The input:
position fen 8/8/8/8/8/8/p7/2k4K b - - 0 1 moves c1b1 h1g1 b1c1 g1h1 c1b1 h1g1 b1a1 g1h1
go movetime 1000
produces the output:
[...]
info depth 127 seldepth 2 multipv 1 score cp 0 [...]
bestmove a1b1
saying that the game will be drawn by repetion. However the other possible
move for black, Kb2, avoids repetitions and wins. The patch fixes this behavior.
In particular it finds mate in 10 in the above position.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 10604 W: 2390 L: 2247 D: 5967
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cb373e00ebc5925cf0167bf
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 19620 W: 3308 L: 3185 D: 13127
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cb3822f0ebc5925cf016b2d
Bench is not changed since it does not test positions with history of moves.
Bench: 3184182
only the extension part of the shuffle patch is sufficient to
pass [0,3.5] bounds at VLTC as shown by two more tests.
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cc168bc0ebc5925cf02bda8
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 120684 W: 17875 L: 17400 D: 85409
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cc14d510ebc5925cf02bcb5
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 68415 W: 10250 L: 9905 D: 48260
this patch proposes to simplify back to this basic and easier to
understand version. In case there is a need to run a [-3, 1] VLTC on
this one, it can be done, but it is resource intensive, and not needed
IMO.
Bench: 3388643
Same idea as fisherman's knight protection.
passed STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 17133 W: 3952 L: 3701 D: 9480
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cc3550b0ebc5925cf02dada
passed LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 37316 W: 6470 L: 6188 D: 24658
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cc3721d0ebc5925cf02dc90
Looking at this 2 ideas being recent clean elo gainers I have a feeling that we can add also rook and queen protection bonuses or overall move this stuff in pieces loop in the same way as we do pieces attacking bonuses on their kingring... :) Thx fisherman for original idea.
Bench 3429173
Only called with Squares as argument, so remove unused variants.
As this is just syntax changes, only verified bench at high depth.
No functional change.
The "move" class variable is Movepick is removed (removes some abstraction) which saves a few assignment operations, and the effects of "filter" is limited to the current move (movePtr). The resulting code is a bit more verbose, but it is also more clear what is going on. This version is NOT tested, but is substantially similar to:
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 29191 W: 6474 L: 6367 D: 16350
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ca7aab50ebc5925cf006e50
This is a non-functional simplification.
We can remove the values in Pawns if we just use the piece arrays in Position. This reduces the size of a pawn entry. This simplification passed individually, and in concert with ps_passedcount100 (removes passedCount storage in pawns.).
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 19957 W: 4529 L: 4404 D: 11024
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cb3c2d00ebc5925cf016f0d
Combo STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17368 W: 3925 L: 3795 D: 9648
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cb3d3510ebc5925cf01709a
This is a non-functional simplification.
It causes a serious regression hanging a simple fixed
depth search. Reproducible with:
position fen q1B5/1P1q4/8/8/8/6R1/8/1K1k4 w - - 0 1
go depth 13
The reason is a search tree explosion due to:
if (... && depth < 3 * ONE_PLY)
extension = ONE_PLY;
This is very dangerous code by itself because triggers **at the leafs**
and in the above position keeps extending endlessly. In normal games
time deadline makes the search to stop sooner or later, but in fixed
seacrch we just hang possibly for a very long time. This is not acceptable
because 'go depth 13' shall not be a surprise for any position.
This patch reverts commit 76f1807baa.
and fixes the issue https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/2091
Bench: 3243738
Introduce a new search extension when pushing an advanced passed pawn is
also suggested by the first killer move. There have been previous tests
which have similar ideas, mostly about pawn pushes, but it seems to be
overkill to extend too many moves. My idea is to limit the extension to
when a move happens to be noteworthy in some other way as well, such as
in this case, when it is also a killer move.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 19027 W: 4326 L: 4067 D: 10634
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cac2cde0ebc5925cf00c36d
LTC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 93390 W: 15995 L: 15555 D: 61840
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cac42270ebc5925cf00c4b9
For future tests, it looks like this will interact heavily with passed
pawn evaluation. It may be good to try more variants of some of the more
promising evaluations tests/tweaks.
Bench: 3666092
Instead of looping through kfrom,kto, rfrom, rto, we can use BetweenBB. This is less lines of code and it is more clear what castlingPath actually is. Personal benchmarks are all over the place. However, this code is only executed when loading a position, so performance doesn't seem that relevant.
No functional change.
The kingDanger term is intended to give a penalty which increases rapidly in the middlegame but less so in the endgame. To this end, the middlegame component is quadratic, and the endgame component is linear. However, this produces unintended consequences for relatively small values of kingDanger: the endgame penalty will exceed the middlegame penalty. This remains true up to kingDanger = 256 (a S(16, 16) penalty), so some of these inaccurate penalties are actually rather large.
In this patch, we increase the threshold for applying the kingDanger penalty to eliminate some of this unintended behavior. This was very nearly, but not quite, sufficient to pass on its own. The patch was finally successful by integrating a second kingDanger tweak by @Vizvezdenec, increasing the kingDanger constant term slightly and improving both STC and LTC performance.
Where do we go from here? I propose that in the future, any attempts to tune kingDanger coefficients should also consider tuning the kingDanger threshold. The evidence shows clearly that it should not be automatically taken to be zero.
Special thanks to @Vizvezdenec for the kingDanger constant tweak. Thanks also to all the approvers and CPU donors who made this possible!
STC:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 141225 W: 31239 L: 30846 D: 79140
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cabbdb20ebc5925cf00b86c
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 30708 W: 5296 L: 5043 D: 20369
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cabff760ebc5925cf00c22d
Bench: 3445945
