Now we can directly replace it with
the definition resulting in simpler
and possibly faster code because
PvNode is evaluated at compile time.
No functional change.
* remove some erroneous comments, that were based on the ONE_PLY == 2.
* rename hd to d, because there's no more half-depth in SF.
* rescope variables into the for loops.
* reindent the for loops correctly.
* add a comment to explain the eval improving part (not so obvious to read
this code as array has 4 dimensions).
No functional change.
This should reduce search inconsistencies, and doesn't seem to have a measurable ELO Impact:
STC with Hash=16
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 49264 W: 10076 L: 10007 D: 29181
LTC with Hash=64
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 82149 W: 14044 L: 14023 D: 54082
Plus an extra test, to make sure it doesn't regress with strong hash pressure:
STC with Hash=4
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.00,0.00]
Total: 21498 W: 4327 L: 4246 D: 12925
Bench: 7302735
Resolves#100
UCI specification is not clear on the size of
integers that are exchanged in the protocol, so
instead of a simple int, assume 'nodes' is a
int64_t because we need a bigger size to store
this value in many real cases, especialy with
very long searches.
No functional change.
Resolves#75
This area has become obscure and tricky over the course of incremental
changes that did not respect the original's consistency and clarity. Now,
it's not clear why we use MAX_PLY = 120, or why we use MAX_PLY+6, among
other things.
This patch does the following:
* ID loop: depth ranges from 1 to MAX_PLY-1, and due to TT constraint (depth
must fit into an int8_t), MAX_PLY should be 128.
* stack[]: plies now range from 0 to MAX_PLY-1, hence stack[MAX_PLY+4],
because of the extra 2+2 padding elements (for ss-2 and ss+2). Document this
better, while we're at it.
* Enforce 0 <= ply < MAX_PLY:
- stop condition is now ss->ply >= MAX_PLY and not ss->ply > MAX_PLY.
- assert(ss->ply < MAX_PLY), before using ss+1 and ss+2.
- as a result, we don't need the artificial MAX_PLY+6 range. Instead we
can use MAX_PLY+4 and it's clear why (for ss-2 and ss+2).
* fix: extract_pv_from_tt() and insert_pv_in_tt() had no reason to use
MAX_PLY_PLUS_6, because the array is indexed by plies, so the range of
available plies applies (0..MAX_PLY before, and now 0..MAX_PLY-1).
Tested with debug compile, using MAX_PLY=16, and running bench at depth 17,
using 1 and 7 threads. No assert() fired. Feel free to submit to more severe
crash-tests, if you can think of any.
No functional change.
This commit fixes two issues:
1) Don't print PVs after the search has been interrupted
This solves the "mate 0 upperbound" scores that sometimes
creep up when a multi-PV analysis gets interrupted with
the `stop` command.
2) Print multipv before score
Shredder Classic fails to identify the main PV
(the one with multipv 1) if `score` comes first.
This leads to an eval graph that doesn't reflect
the scores actually reported by Stockfish when
doing a multiPV analysis.
No functional change
Closes#76
Now that half-plies are no more used we can simplify
the code assuming that ONE_PLY is 1 and no more 2.
Verified with a SMP test:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.50,0.00]
Total: 8926 W: 1712 L: 1607 D: 5607
No functional change.
In case of a succesful late join we set again
'searching' flag, so we can restart search
immediately without an useless lock/unlock
cycle.
No functional change.
Now "Write Search Log" will pring moves in UCI format, consistent with all the rest. This functionality is
not aimed at end-users anyway. It's hardly useful at all, in fact. Also, pretty-printing SAN moves is
something that better belongs in the GUI than in the engine.
No functional change.
Unify various perft functions and move all the code
to search.cpp.
Avoid perft implementation to be splitted between
benchmark.cpp (where it has no reason to be) and
search.cpp
No functional and no speed change (tested).
After commit 94b1bbb68b, in case available root moves are less than multiPV, we
could never reach condition:
PVIdx + 1 == multiPV
and as a consequence UCI output is not printed.
Fixed suggested by Joerg Oster.
No functional change.
Steamline a bit the implementation of
skill levels. As a side effect we can
retire MultiPV global and use a local
variable instead.
No functional change.
- Currently broken
- Never been really useful
- Does not work well with new splitting model
Verified for no regression at STC with 3 threads:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-6.00,0.00]
Total: 81905 W: 12122 L: 12381 D: 57402
No functional change
With Eelco's patch "Don't special case for abs(beta) >= VALUE_MATE_IN_MAX_PLY" condition "abs(ttValue) < VALUE_KNOWN_WIN" has been removed from singular extension search, and condition "abs(beta) < VALUE_KNOWN_WIN" was added to the SingularExtensionNode definition.
This might lead to problems, especially in positions, where a mate is due.
For example, this position 5rk1/4K1pp/8/5PPP/8/8/8/1R6 w - - 12 1 triggers an assert.
stockfish: search.cpp:434: Value {anonymous}::search(Position&, Search::Stack*, Value, Value, Depth, bool) [with {anonymous}::NodeType NT = (<unnamed>::NodeType)2u; bool SpNode = false]: Assertion `-VALUE_INFINITE <= alpha && alpha < beta && beta <= VALUE_INFINITE' failed.
So let's re-insert the removed condition.
First spotted by Uri Blass, fix by me.
Bench: 8759675
The assert:
assert(ttValue != VALUE_NONE);
Could fire for multiple reasons (although is very rare),
for instance after an IID we can have ttMove != MOVE_NONE
while ttValue is still set at VALUE_NONE.
But not only this, actually SMP is a source of corrupted
ttValue and anyhow we can detect the condition:
ttMove != MOVE_NONE && ttValue == VALUE_NONE
even north of IID.
Reported by Ronald de Man.
It is so rare that bench didn't change.
bench: 7710548
Remove from the search this special case and apply
null search and razoring also in mate positions.
Tested in no-regression mode and passed both
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 65431 W: 10860 L: 10810 D: 43761
and LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 34928 W: 4814 L: 4713 D: 25401
This patch kicks in only in mate positions and in
these cases it seems beneficial in finding mates
faster as Yery Spark measured on the Chest mate suite:
Total number of positions 6425
Fixed nodes 200K per position
master: 1049
new: 1154
And also the 5446 'hard' positions again with 2000K nodes
(those not found by both engines in 200K nodes):
master: 1069
new: 1395
bench: 7710548
Don't take the split lock if we don't have
available slaves (about 30-40% of times).
This new condition allows to retire the now
redundant one on number of threads.
No functional change.
Split previous patch in 2 steps: first remove
the MOVE_NULL hack, then retire nullChild.
The first step is a prerequisite
for second one and affects bench.
The second step (next patch) just removes nullChild
without affecting bench.
bench: 8205159
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
Before it was working by accident in case of
see_sign() and failing with see() due to how
castle moves are coded (king captures the rook).
Better to explicitly filter out castling moves
and use see() without any surprise/trick.
No functional case.
Book handling belongs to GUI, we kept this code
for historical reasons, but nowdays there is
really no need of this old, (mostly) unused
and especially incorrect designed functionality.
It is up to the GUI to choose the book (far easier for
the user) and to select the book parameters. In no
place, including fishtest, TCEC, rating lists, etc.
the "own book" is used, moreover currently SF is
released without any book and even if in the future we
bundle a book in the release package, it will be the GUI
that will take care of it.
This corrects a wrong design decision that Galurung
and later Stockfish inherited from what was common
practice many yeas ago.
No functional change.
