Introducing new concept, saving principal lines into the transposition table
to generate a "critical search tree" which we can reuse later for intelligent
pruning/extension decisions.
For instance in this patch we just reduce reduction for these lines. But a lot
of other ideas are possible.
To go further : tune some parameters, how to add or remove lines from the
critical search tree, how to use these lines in search choices, etc.
STC :
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 59761 W: 13321 L: 12863 D: 33577 +2.23 ELO
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c34da5d0ebc596a450c53d3
LTC :
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 26826 W: 4439 L: 4191 D: 18196 +2.9 ELO
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c35ceb00ebc596a450c65b2
Special thanks to Miguel Lahoz for his help in transposition table in/out.
Bench: 3399866
This was inspired after reading about
[Multi-Cut](https://www.chessprogramming.org/Multi-Cut).
We now do non-singular cut node pruning. The idea is to prune when we
have a "backup plan" in case our expected fail high node does not fail
high on the ttMove.
For singular extensions, we do a search on all other moves but the
ttMove. If this fails high on our original beta, this means that both
the ttMove, as well as at least one other move was proven to fail high
on a lower depth search. We then assume that one of these moves will
work on a higher depth and prune.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 72952 W: 16104 L: 15583 D: 41265
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c3119640ebc596a450c0be5
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 27103 W: 4564 L: 4314 D: 18225
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c3184c00ebc596a450c1662
Bench: 3145487
The `&& (ss-1)->killers[0] ` conditions are there seemingly to protect
accessing ss-5.
This is unneeded and not so intuitive (as the killer is checked for equality
with currentMove, and that one is non-zero once we're high enough in the stack,
this protects access to ss-5). We can just extend the stack from ss-4 to ss-5,
so we can call update_continuation_histories(ss-1, ..) always in search.
This goes a bit further than #1881 and addresses a comment in #1878.
passed STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c1aa8d50ebc5902ba127ad0
LLR: 3.12 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 53515 W: 11734 L: 11666 D: 30115
passed LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c1b272c0ebc5902ba12858d
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 140176 W: 23123 L: 23192 D: 93861
Bench: 3451321
this patch fixes a rare but reproducible segfault observed playing a
multi-threaded match, it is discussed somewhat in fishcooking.
From the core file, it could be observed that the issue was in qsearch, namely:
````
ss->pv[0] = MOVE_NONE;
````
and the backtrace shows the it arrives there via razoring, called from the rootNode:
````
(gdb) bt
alpha=-19, beta=682, depth=DEPTH_ZERO) at search.cpp:1247
````
Indeed, ss->pv can indeed by a nullptr at the rootNode. However, why is the
segfault so rare ?
The reason is that the condition that guards razoring:
````
(depth < 2 * ONE_PLY && eval <= alpha - RazorMargin)
````
is almost never true, since at the root alpha for depth < 5 is -VALUE_INFINITE.
Nevertheless with the new failHigh scheme, this is not guaranteed, and rootDepth > 5,
can still result in a depth < 2 search at the rootNode. If now another thread,
via the hash, writes a new low eval to the rootPos qsearch can be entered.
Rare but not unseen... I assume that some of the crashes in fishtest recently
might be due to this.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1860
No functional change
On November 30th, @xoto10 experimented with removing this threshold,
but the simplification barely failed LTC. I was inspired to try various
[0, 4] tweaks to increase its value, which would narrow the effects of
this threshold without removing it entirely. Various values repeatedly
led to Elo gains at both STC and LTC, most of which were insufficient
to pass.
After a couple of weeks, I tried again to find an Elo-gaining tweak
but noticed that I could raise the threshold higher and higher without
regression. I decided to try removing it entirely--forgetting that
@xoto10 had already attempted this. However, this now performs much
better at both STC and LTC, producing a STC Elo gain and also potentially
a smaller LTC one.
The reason appears to be a recent change in master (e8ffca3) near
this code, which interacts with this patch. This simplification
governs the conditions under which that patch's effects are applied.
Something non-obvious about that change has significantly improved
the performance of this simplification.
I recognize and thank @xoto10, who originally had this idea. Since
I ran several LTCs recently (to determine whether to open this PR,
or one for a related [0, 4]), I would also like to acknowledge the
other developers and CPU donors for their patience. Thank you all!
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 13445 W: 3000 L: 2862 D: 7583
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c11f01b0ebc5902ba11a6b8
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 33868 W: 5663 L: 5563 D: 22642
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c11ffe90ebc5902ba11a8a9
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1870
Bench: 3343286
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 13323 W: 3015 L: 2818 D: 7490
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c00a2520ebc5902bcedd41b
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 52294 W: 9093 L: 8756 D:34445
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c00b2c40ebc5902bcedd596
Some obvious followups to this are to further tune this PSQT, or
try 8x8 for other pieces. As of now I don't plan on trying this
for other pieces as I think the majority of the ELO it brings is
for pawns and kings.
Looking at the new values, the differences between kingside and
queenside are quite significant. I am very hopeful that this a
llows SF to understand and plan pawn structures even better than
it already does. Cheers!
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1839
Bench: 3569243
I've gone through the RENAME/REFORMATTING thread and changed everything I could find, plus a few more. With this, let's close the previous issue and open another.
No functional change.
Remove the F[] array which I find unhelpful and rename `improvingFactor` to
`fallingEval` since larger values indicate a falling eval and more time use.
I realise a test was not strictly necessary, but I ran STC [-3,1] just to
check there are no foolish errors before creating the pull request:
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 35804 W: 7753 L: 7659 D: 20392
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bef3a0c0ebc595e0ae39c19
It was then suggested to clean the constants around `fallingEval`
to make it more clear this is a factor around ~1 that adjusts time
up or downwards depending on some conditions. We then ran a double
test with this simplification suggestion:
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 68435 W: 14936 L: 14906 D: 38593
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c02c56b0ebc5902bcee0184
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 37258 W: 6324 L: 6230 D: 24704
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c030a520ebc5902bcee0a32
No functional change
On November 16th, before the removal of the depth condition, I tried
revising castling extensions to only handle castling moves, rather than
moves that change castling rights generally. It appeared to be a slight
Elo gain at STC but insufficient to pass [0, 4] (+0.5 Elo), but what I
overlooked was that it made pos.can_castle(us) irrelevant and should
have been a simplification. Recent discussion with @Chess13234 and
Michael Chaly (@Vizvezdenec) inspired me to take a second look, and
the simplification continues to pass when rebased on the current master.
This replaces two conditions with one, because type_of(move) == CASTLING
implies pos.can_castle(Us), allowing us to remove the latter condition.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 110948 W: 24209 L: 24263 D: 62476
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf8f65c0ebc5902bced3a63
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 88283 W: 14681 L: 14668 D: 58934
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf994a60ebc5902bced4349
Bench: 3939338
Don't do an extra TT update in case of a fail-high,
but simply break off the moves loop and let the TT update
at the end of qsearch do this job.
Same workflow/logic as in our main search function now.
Tested for no regression to be on the safe side.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 30237 W: 6665 L: 6560 D: 17012
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf928e80ebc5902bced3f3a
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 51067 W: 8625 L: 8553 D: 33889
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf937180ebc5902bced3fdc
No functional change.
Because of aggressive time management and optimistic assumptions
about move overhead, it's still very easy to get Stockfish to forfeit
on time when we hit an endgame and have Syzygy EGTB on a spinning
drive. The latency from serving a few thousand EGTB probes (~10ms each),
of which there can currently be up to 4000 outstanding before a time
check, will easily overwhelm the default Move Overhead of 30ms.
This problem was first raised by Gian-Carlo Pascutto and some solutions
and improvements were discussed in the following pull requests:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1471https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1623https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1783
This patch is a minimal change proposed by Marco Costalba to lower
the impact of the bug. We now force a check of the clock right after
each tablebase read.
No functional change.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 51883 W: 11297 L: 10915 D: 29671
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf1e2ee0ebc595e0ae3cacd
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 15859 W: 2752 L: 2565 D: 10542
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf337980ebc5902bcecbf62
Notes:
(1) The bonus value has not been carefully tested, so it may be possible
to find slightly better values.
(2) Plan is to now try adding similar restriction for pawns. I wanted to
include that as part of this pull request, but I was advised to do it as
two separate pull requests. STC is currently running here, but may not add
enough value to pass green.
Bench: 3679086
Preparation commit for the upcoming Stockfish 10 version, giving a chance to catch last minute feature bugs and evaluation regression during the one-week code freeze period. Also changing the copyright dates to include 2019.
No functional change
This patch will make possible to free mapped TB files with "ucinewgame" command.
We wrote this patch specifically to address a problem that arose while
running Stockfish with 7-piece tablebases as a kibitzer at TCEC for
extended periods of time across multiple games. It was noted that after
some time, the NPS of the kibitzing Stockfish (which is usually 3x faster
than the Stockfish actually competing) would drop precipitously, eventually
falling to preposterously low numbers until restarted.
Their eval bot basically inputs FEN, go infinite, stop and loop, it probably
didn't do ucinewgame either. As time goes it gradually slowed down and OS
starts to use swap, this is not reasonable since the engine only uses 16GB
hash and the machine has 1TB physical RAM and does nothing else.
Author : noobpwnftw
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1790
No functional change.
The recently committed Fail-High patch (081af90805)
had a number of changes beyond adjusting the depth of search on fail high, with
some undesirable side effects.
1) Decreasing depth on PV output, confusing GUIs and players alike as described in
issue #1787. The depth printed is anyway a convention, let's consider adjustedDepth
an implementation detail, and continue to print rootDepth. Depth, nodes, time and
move quality all increase as we compute more. (fixing this output has no effect on
play).
2) Fixes go depth output (now based on rootDepth again, no effect on play), also
reported in issue #1787
3) The depth lastBestDepth is used to compute how long a move is stable, a new move
found during fail-high is incorrectly considered stable if based on adjustedDepth
instead of rootDepth (this changes time management). Reverting this passed STC
and LTC:
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 82982 W: 17810 L: 17808 D: 47364
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bd391a80ebc595e0ae1e993
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 109083 W: 17602 L: 17619 D: 73862
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bd40c820ebc595e0ae1f1fb
4) In the thread voting scheme, the rank of the fail-high thread is now artificially
low, incorrectly since the quality of the move is much better than what adjustedDepth
suggests (e.g. if it takes 10 iterations to find VALUE_KNOWN_WIN, it has very low
depth). Further evidence comes from a test that showed that the move of highest
depth is not better than that of the last PV (which is potentially of much lower
adjustedDepth).
I.e. this test http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bd37a120ebc595e0ae1e7c3
failed SPRT[0, 5]:
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 10609 W: 2266 L: 2345 D: 5998
In a running 5+0.05 th 8 test (more than 10000 games) a positive Elo estimate is
shown (strong enough for a [-3,1], possibly not [0,4]):
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bd421be0ebc595e0ae1f315
LLR: -0.13 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 13644 W: 2573 L: 2532 D: 8539
Elo 1.04 [-2.52,4.61] / LOS 71%
Thus, restore old behavior as a bugfix, keeping the core of the fail-high patch
idea as resolving scheme. This is non-functional for bench, but changes searches
via time management and in the threaded case.
Bench: 3556672
This helps resolving consecutive FH's during aspiration more efficiently
STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bc857920ebc592439f85765
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 4992 W: 1134 L: 980 D: 2878 Elo +10.72
LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bc868050ebc592439f857ef
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 8123 W: 1363 L: 1210 D: 5550 Elo +6.54
No-Regression test with 8 threads, tc=15+0.15:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bc874ca0ebc592439f85938
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 24740 W: 3977 L: 3863 D: 16900 Elo +1.60
This was a cooperation between me and Michael Stembera:
-me recognizing SF having problems with resolving FH's efficiently at
high depths, thus starting some tests based on consecutive FH's.
-mstembera picking up the idea with first success at STC & LTC (so full
credits to him!)
-me suggesting how to resolve the issues pinpointed by S.G on PR #1768
and finally restricting the logic to the main thread so that it don't
regresses at multi-thread.
bench: 3314347
The patch adds a small random component (+-1) to VALUE_DRAW for the evaluation
of draw positions (mostly 3folds). This random component is not static, but
potentially different for each visit of the node (hence derived from the node
counter). The effect is that in positions with many 3fold draw lines, different
lines are followed at each iteration. This keeps the search much more dynamic,
as opposed to being locked to one particular 3fold.
An example of a position where master suffers from 3fold-blindness and this patch
solves quickly is the famous TCEC game 53:
FEN: 3r2k1/pr6/1p3q1p/5R2/3P3p/8/5RP1/3Q2K1 b - - 0 51
master doesn't see that this is a lost position (draw eval up to depth 50) as
Qf6-e6 d4-d5 (found by patch at depth 23) leads to a loss.
The 3fold-blindness is more important at longer TC, the patch was yellow STC and
LTC, but passed VLTC:
STC
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 46328 W: 10048 L: 9953 D: 26327
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b9c0ca20ebc592cf275f7c7
LTC
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 54663 W: 8938 L: 8846 D: 36879
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b9ca1610ebc592cf27601d3
VLTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 31789 W: 4512 L: 4284 D: 22993
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b9d1a670ebc592cf276076d
Credit to @crossbr for pointing to this problem repeatedly, and giving the hint
that many draw lines are typical in those situations.
Bench: 4756639
Currently we update (track up) the pv even in the fail high case.
However most times in such cases the pv in the ply below remains unset
because there we have value == alpha and so finally we see truncated
pv's (=just one move) in fail high cases.
Of course tracking down these pv's (+sending them to the gui) comes at a
certian cost, but no-regression tests passed:
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 16300 W: 3556 L: 3424 D: 9320
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b9b73500ebc592cf275ea92
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 202411 W: 32734 L: 32897 D: 136780
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b9baed10ebc592cf275ef6d
N.B.: Digging also into qsearch was tried in another version but seemed
not to pass the tests. This means that we don't always will get a pv
until the very tips.
No functional change
This PR is a combination of two unrelated [0, 4] patches that appeared promising
but not quite strong enough to pass on their own. The combination initially failed
STC with a positive score after a long run, and the subsequent speculative LTC test
passed.
* tweak_threatOnQueen4 :
Increase the middlegame components of ThreatByMinor[QUEEN]
and ThreatByRook[QUEEN] by 15 each. Bryan's (@crossbr) analysis of CCC Bonus Game 10
inspired several tests on penalizing a queen with limited safe mobility. While
attempting to implement this idea, I noticed that when I did not include the queen's
current square in the calculations, the Elo gains seemed to vanish--and only then did
I have the idea to revisit ThreatByMinor[QUEEN] and ThreatByRook[QUEEN], adding a
corresponding value to each. Without Bryan's work, this test would never have been
submitted. I would also like to recognize the efforts and contributions of @SFisGOD,
who also vigorously worked on this idea.
* Use pure static eval for null move pruning :
This idea was directly re-purposed from a promising test by Jerry Donald Watson
(@jerrydonaldwatson) in August. It was also independently developed and tested by
Stefan Geschwentner (@locutus2) previously.
Thank you all!
STC (failed yellow):
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 83913 W: 17986 L: 17825 D: 48102
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bbc59300ebc592439f76aa5
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 137198 W: 22351 L: 21772 D: 93075
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bbce35f0ebc592439f77639
Bench: 4312846
Note by snicolet: I use this non-functional change patch
as a pretext to correct the wrong bench number I introduced
in the message of the previous commit.
Bench: 4059356
This commit tries to make the new pure static eval code more readable by
splitting up the nested assignments into separate lines and making a few
more cosmetic tweaks.
No functional change.
Follow-up for the previous patch: we use an affine formula to mix stats
and evaluation in search. The idea is to give a bonus if the previous
move of the opponent was historically bad, and a malus if the previous
move of the opponent was historically good.
More precisely, if x is the stat score of the previous move by the opponent,
we implement the following formulas to tweak the evaluation at an internal
node of the tree for our pruning decisions at this node:
if x = 0, use v' = eval(P)
if x > 0, use v' = eval(P) - 5 - x/1024
if x < 0, use v' = eval(P) + 5 - x/1024
For reference, the previous master had this simpler rule:
if x > 0, use v' = eval(P) - 10
if x <= 0, use v' = eval(P)
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 29322 W: 6359 L: 6088 D: 16875
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b76a5980ebc5902bdba957f
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 30893 W: 5154 L: 4910 D: 20829
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b76ca6d0ebc5902bdba9914
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1740
Bench: 4592766
Mix search stats with evaluation: if the opponent's move has a good historyStat,
then decrease the evaluation of the internal node a bit for the pruning decisions
during search.
STC;
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 72083 W: 15683 L: 15203 D: 41197
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b74c3ea0ebc5902bdba7d41
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 29104 W: 4867 L: 4630 D: 19607
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b7565000ebc5902bdba851b
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1738
Bench: 4514101
-----------
How to continue from there?
• the use of the previous stat score can probably be simplified in lines 587 and 716
• we could try to use a continuous bonus based on the previous stat score, instead
of just a fixed offset of -10 when the opponent previous move was good.
----------
Comments by Stefan Geschwentner:
Interesting idea. Because only the eval in search is tweak this should only
influence the eval and static eval used at inner nodes, and not on the return
search value (which comes in the end from quiescence search), except through
saving in TT followed by a TT cutoff.
So essentialy this effects diverse pruning/reduction parts -- eval and static
eval are lowered for good opponent moves:
• tt cutoff (ttValue)
• improving (static eval)
• more razoring (eval)
• less futility pruning (eval)
• less null move pruning (eval + static eval) (but with little more depth)
• more probcut (static eval)
• more move futility pruning (static eval)
This patch introduces a non-linear bonus for pawns, along with some
(linear) corrections for the other pieces types.
The original values were obtained by a massive non-linear tuning of both
pawns and other pieces by GuardianRM, while Alain Savard and Chris Cain
later simplified the patch by observing that, apart from the pawn case, the
tuned corrections were in fact almost affine and could be incorporated in
our current code base via the piece values in types.h (offset) and the diagonal
of the quadratic matrix (slope). See discussion in PR#1725 :
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1725
STC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 42948 W: 9662 L: 9317 D: 23969
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b6ff6e60ebc5902bdba1d87
LTC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 19683 W: 3409 L: 3206 D: 13068
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b702dbd0ebc5902bdba216b
How to continue from there?
- Maybe the non-linearity for the pawn value could be somewhat tempered
again and a simpler linear correction for pawns would work?
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1734
Bench: 4681496
We simplify the razoring logic by applying it to all nodes at depth 1 only.
An added advantage is that only one razor margin is needed now, and we treat
PV and Non-PV nodes in the same manner.
How to continue?
- There may be some conditions in which depth 2 razoring is beneficial.
- We can see whether the razor margin can be tuned, perhaps even with a
different value for PV nodes.
- Perhaps we can unify the treatment of PV and Non-PV nodes in other parts
of the search as well.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 5474 W: 1281 L: 1127 D: 3066
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b6de3b20ebc5902bdba0d1e
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 62670 W: 10749 L: 10697 D: 41224
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b6dee340ebc5902bdba0eb0
In addition, we ran a fixed LTC test against a similar patch which also
passed SPRT [-3, 1]:
ELO: 0.23 +-2.1 (95%) LOS: 58.6%
Total: 36412 W: 6168 L: 6144 D: 24100
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b6e83940ebc5902bdba1485
We are opting for this patch as the more logical and simple of the two,
and it appears to be no less strong. Thanks in particular to @DU-jdto
for input into this patch.
Bench: 4476945
Unify the "quiet" and "non-quiet" reduction rules for use at any kind of moves.
The idea behind it was that both rules reduce at similiar cases in master:
one directly for late previous moves and the other indirectly by using a
bad stat score which is used for most move sorting and so approximates the
late move condition.
For captures/promotions the old rule was triggered in 25% but the new
rule only for 3% of all cases (so now more reductions are done, whereas
for quiet moves reductions keep the same level).
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 162327 W: 35976 L: 36134 D: 90217
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b6a9a430ebc5902bdb9d5c1
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 29570 W: 5083 L: 4976 D: 19511
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b6bc5d00ebc5902bdb9e9d6
Bench: 4526980
After a session of tuning for King Psqt I got some new values, which was later
tweaked manually by me Fauzi, to result in an Elo-gain patch which seems to scale
pretty well:
STC: LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 100653 W: 22550 L: 22314 D: 55789 [Yellow patch]
LTC: LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 147079 W: 25584 L: 24947 D: 96548 [Green Patch]
Bench: 4669050
Introduce voting system for best move selction in multi-threads mode.
Joint work with Stefan Geschwentner, based on ideas introduced by
Michael Stembera.
Moves are upvoted by every thread using the margin to the minimum score
across threads and the completed depth.
First thread voting for the winner move is selected as best thread.
Passed STC, LTC. A further LTC test with only 4 threads failed with positive
score. A LTC with 31 threads was stopped with LLR 0.77 after 25k games to
avoid use of excessive resources (equivalent to 1.5M STC games).
Similar ideas were proposed by Michael Stembera 2 years ago #507, #508.
This implementation seems simpler and more understandable, the results
slightly more promising.
Further possible work:
1) Tweak of the formula using for assigning votes.
2) Use a different baseline for the score dependent part: maximum score
or winning probability could make more sense.
3) Assign votes in `Thread::Search` as iterations are completed and use
voting results to stop search.
4) Select best thread as the threads voting for best move with the highest
completed depth or, alternatively, vote on PV moves.
Link to SPRT tests
[stopped LTC, 31 threads 20+0.02](http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b61dc090ebc5902bdb95192)
LLR: 0.77 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 25602 W: 3977 L: 3850 D: 17775
Elo: 1.70 [-0.68,4.07] (95%)
[passed LTC, 8 threads 20+0.02](http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b5df5180ebc5902bdb9162d)
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 44478 W: 7602 L: 7300 D: 29576
Elo: 1.92 [-0.29,3.94] (95%)
[failed LTC, 4 threads 20+0.02](http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b5f39ef0ebc5902bdb92792)
LLR: -2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 29922 W: 5286 L: 5285 D: 19351
Elo: 0.48 [-1.98,3.10] (95%)
[passed STC, 4 threads 5+0.05](http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b5dbf0f0ebc5902bdb9131c)
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 9108 W: 2033 L: 1858 D: 5217
Elo: 6.11 [1.26,10.89] (95%)
No functional change (in simple threat mode)
Use operator const T&() instead of operator T() to avoid possible
costly hidden copies of non-scalar nested types.
Currently StatsEntry has a single member T, so assuming
sizeof(StatsEntry) == sizeof(T) it happens to work, but it's
better to use the size of the proper entry type in std::fill.
Note that current code works because std::array items are ensured
to be allocated in contiguous memory and there is no padding among
nested arrays. The latter condition does not seem to be strictly
enforced by the standard, so be careful here.
Finally use address-of operator instead of get() to fully hide the
wrapper class StatsEntry at calling sites. For completness add
the arrow operator too and simplify the C++ code a bit more.
Same binary code as previous master under the Clang compiler.
No functional change.
