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
Dumb down a bit the code and trade some possible
speed (but this is far from hot path anyhow) for
some added readability for the layman.
No functional change.
The normalising transformation is computed all at
once by the helper function get_flip_sq and then
applied immediately to the relevant squares as soon
as they are loaded from the position class.
bench: 8350690
New formula mathces the old formula until d = 45
Test code:
int main() {
for(int d=1; d<=45; d++)
{
int a = int(log(double(d * d) / 2) / log(2.0) + 1.001);
int b = int(2.9 * log(double(d)));
if (a != b) std::cout << d << std::endl;
}
return 0;
}
bench: 8455956
This is the first chain bonus version
from Ralph that also passed both
Short TC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 23460 W: 4727 L: 4556 D: 14177
And long TC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 31858 W: 5497 L: 5240 D: 21121
And performed better against current
committed version, always at 60secs:
LLR: -2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,3.00]
Total: 26301 W: 4477 L: 4580 D: 17244
This test was done by Leonid.
bench: 8455956
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
It was never updated !
Currently it only affects evaluate_passed_pawns()
and in particularly the rule to increase the bonus
if we have more non-pawn pieces. We could simply use
popcount() instead and avoid the little slowdown
in put_piece() and remove_piece(), but this would
leave a very subtle and tricky hole where people
are forced to remember that pos.count<ALL_PIECES>()
does not work. This is not obvious and so dangerous.
Thanks to Ronald de Man for spotting this.
bench: 7931424
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
Also the drawing criteria has been slightly loosened.
It now detects a draw if the king is ahead of all the
pawns and on the same file or the adjacent file.
bench: 7700683
This lost position 8/8/3q4/8/5k2/2P1R3/2K2P2/8 w - - 0 1
was previously evaluated as a draw.
The king and rook need to be correctly placed with
respect to the _same_ pawn.
(Note also that the check for the pawn being on RANK_2
in the old version is redundant: it must be on RANK_2 if
it hopes to protect a rook on RANK_3)
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
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
Don't need a struct here. Speed test shows
result is teh same. Moreover RKISS is used
mainly at startup to compute magics, so
prefer to keep it simple...RKISS ;-)
Also some assorted triviality while there.
No functional change.
These two changes go in opposite directions and it
seems that the combination is stronger than original.
Here are the positive tests at various TC:
15+0.05
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 24561 W: 4946 L: 4772 D: 14843
60+0.05
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 15259 W: 2598 L: 2423 D: 10238
40/30
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,3.00]
Total: 2570 W: 527 L: 422 D: 1621
Unfortunately there is also a bad result
with one sec time increment that needs
to be further investigated:
12+1
LLR: -2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,3.00]
Total: 2694 W: 438 L: 543 D: 1713
bench: 8340585
Rationale:
- Speed of double and float is about the same (not on the hot path anyway)
- Double makes code prettier (no need to write 1.0f, just 1.0)
- Only practical advantage of float is to use less memory, but since we never
store large arrays of double, we don't care.
No functional change.
Increase bench default depth from 12 to 13 and
add 15 new endgame positions to have broader
coverage and also more reliable nps calulcation
used for fishtest framework.
Due to the new endgame positions, where nps is higher,
the total nps is increased of about 15%.
Thanks to Lucas and Jörg for the suggestions.
No functional change, but bench number is now:
bench: 8336338
For some users -stack_size,0x4000 does not work,
so revert for now.
osX 10.6.8
gcc version 4.7.3 (MacPorts gcc47 4.7.3_2)
g++: error: unrecognized command line option '-stack_size,0x4000'
make[2]: *** [stockfish] Error 1
make[1]: *** [gcc-profile-make] Error 2
make: *** [profile-build] Error 2
No functional change.
This reverts commit 800410eef1 and instead increases
stack size.
I went through the old emails with Daylen that reported the
crash issue on Mac OS X and was fixed by 0049d3f337.
It was reported default stack size for a thread in Mac OS X is 8
megabytes while the patch that we are reverting allows to reduce
stack size at max of about 217KB, so the reason for the crash was
only marginal in MAX_MOVES value. On those emails Daylen also
hinted how to increase stack size for Mac OS X to 16MB.
So prefer to increase stack size to 16MB instad of re-inventing
the wheel and do our home grown stack as we did with the patch
that we are now reverting (it will remain anyhow in git history
for documentation purposes).
No functional change.
Unify extensions between PV and not PV nodes
and remove all but check extensions.
This is a simplification so tested at fixed number
of games where proved to not regress.
About 45k games at 15+0.05
ELO: 1.23 +-2.0 (95%) LOS: 88.5%
Total: 45643 W: 9107 L: 8946 D: 27590
About 45k games at 60+0.05
ELO: 1.07 +-1.8 (95%) LOS: 87.8%
Total: 46786 W: 7728 L: 7584 D: 31474
bench: 3172206
If the uci option 'Best Book Move' is set to true the lookup still
returns a move at random instead of the move with the highest
weight.
No functional change.
This should be enough for any legal position, even
the handcrafted ones, like the one presented by Reuven:
1Q5R/4Q1K1/B1Q5/B4Q2/N2Q4/pQ4Q1/pn2Q3/krQ4R w - -
Where currently we crash. This reverts the patch
0049d3f337 of 8/4/2012 where stack
was shrinked due to crashes while in deep analysys.
No functional change.
This greately reduces stack usage and is a
prerequisite for next patch.
Verified with 40K games both in single and SMP
case that there are no regressions.
No functional change.
This is an even safer setup proposed and tested
by Alexandre Meirelles.
Regression testing of 40K games at 10+0.05 show
result is stable both against current master:
ELO: -0.29 +-2.2 (95%) LOS: 39.7%
Total: 40000 W: 8010 L: 8043 D: 23947
and again original master (the one with smallest
time parameters):
ELO: 1.71 +-2.2 (95%) LOS: 93.8%
Total: 40000 W: 8325 L: 8128 D: 23547
Alexandre verified with LittleBlitzer time losses are
greately reduced with this setup:
Games Completed = 2100 of 3000 (Avg game length = 35.745 sec)
Settings = RR/128MB/15000ms+50ms/M 1000cp for 12 moves, D 150 moves/
Time = 39200 sec elapsed, 16800 sec remaining
1. Stockfish 190913 1091.5/2100 803-720-577 (L: m=313 t=1 i=0 a=406) (D: r=278 i=91 f=136 s=8 a=64) (tpm=212.5 d=14.75 nps=925427)
2. Houdini 2.0 w32 1008.5/2100 720-803-577 (L: m=250 t=299 i=0 a=254) (D: r=278 i=91 f=136 s=8 a=64) (tpm=204.1 d=12.04 nps=1326351)
No functional change.
Goes in the direction of avoiding time losses and seems
equivalent after almost 40K games at super fast TC of 10+0.05
ELO: 2.61 +-2.2 (95%) LOS: 99.1%
Total: 39869 W: 8258 L: 7959 D: 23652
No functional change.
Goes in the direction of avoiding time losses and seems
equivalent after almost 40K games at super fast TC of 10+0.05
ELO: 2.41 +-2.3 (95%) LOS: 98.1%
Total: 37222 W: 7843 L: 7585 D: 21794
No functional change.
The ideal setting for super-blitz might be something like:
"Emergency Base Time" = 50
"Emergency Move Time" = 5
This would give a total emergency time buffer of:
50 + 40 * 5 = 250 ms
This setup replaces the previous half cooked hack
"Don't blunder under extreme time pressure".
Test results are very good at super blitz, but keep good even
at 60 secs.
At 5+0.05
ELO: 24.30 +-2.4 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 37802 W: 10060 L: 7420 D: 20322
At 15+0.05
ELO: 13.41 +-2.9 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 22271 W: 4853 L: 3994 D: 13424
At 60+0.05
ELO: 5.30 +-3.2 (95%) LOS: 99.9%
Total: 16000 W: 2897 L: 2653 D: 10450
No functional change.
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.
