As a note, current 2 LMR conditions on stat score
could be simplified in a single line:
r -= ((ss->statScore >= 0) - ((ss-1)->statScore >= 0)) * ONE_PLY;
We keep them splitted in 2 "if" statements because are easier
to (immediately) read.
No functional change.
This patch reverts the recent commit called "Tweak reductions formula, etc."
The decisions for the revert decision were as follows:
1) The original commit called "Tweak reductions formula: 0.88 * depth + 0.12"
showed bad scaling at in a Very Long Time Control (VLTC) test:
VLTC (180+1.8):
LLR: -1.59 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 14968 W: 2247 L: 2257 D: 10464
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b559ffa0ebc5902bdb84f36
2) So there was a suspicion that the original fast passing LTC test which lead
us to accept the patch may have been a statistical accident, so we organized
a match against the previous master at LTC to get an Elo estimate for the
patch:
LTC match:
ELO: -1.83 +-2.1 (95%) LOS: 4.3%
Total: 36018 W: 6018 L: 6208 D: 23792
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b55f8110ebc5902bdb8526f
3) Based on these results, we ran a simplification test with [-3..1] bounds
for the revert at LTC:
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 41501 W: 7107 L: 7020 D: 27374
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b5738670ebc5902bdb86932
4) So we revert.
Bench: 4491691
Compiling the current master with MSVC gives the following error:
```
search.cpp(956): error C2660: 'operator *': function does not take 1 arguments
types.h(303): note: see declaration of 'operator *'
```
This was introduced in commit:
88de112b84
We use a suggestion by @vondele to fix the error, thanks!
No functional change.
The '- 1' subtrahend was introduced for guarding against null move
search at root, which would be nonsense. But this is actually already
guaranteed by the !PvNode condition. This followed from the discussion
in pull request 1609: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1609
No functional change
Fix an error when compiling current master with MSVC due to the
ambiguity of which operator* overload was intended (reported by
Jarrod Torriero).
No functional change.
define Color us and use this instead of pos.side_to_move() and nmp_odd. The latter allows to clarify the nmp verification criterion.
Tested for no regression:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 76713 W: 15303 L: 15284 D: 46126
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b046a0d0ebc5914abc12971
No functional change.
A position which has a move which draws by repetition, or which could have
been reached from an earlier position in the game tree, is considered to be
at least a draw for the side to move.
Cycle detection algorithm by Marcel van Kervink:
https://marcelk.net/2013-04-06/paper/upcoming-rep-v2.pdf
----------------------------
How does the algorithm work in practice? The algorithm is an efficient
method to detect if the side to move has a drawing move, without doing any
move generation, thus possibly giving a cheap cutoffThe most interesting
conditions are both on line 1195:
```
if ( originalKey == (progressKey ^ stp->key)
|| progressKey == Zobrist::side)
```
This uses the position keys as a sort-of Bloom filter, to avoid the expensive
checks which follow. For "upcoming repetition" consider the opening Nf3 Nf6 Ng1.
The XOR of this position's key with the starting position gives their difference,
which can be used to look up black's repeating move (Ng8). But that look-up is
expensive, so line 1195 checks that the white pieces are on their original squares.
This is the subtlest part of the algorithm, but the basic idea in the above game
is there are 4 positions (starting position and the one after each move). An XOR
of the first pair (startpos and after Nf3) gives a key matching Nf3. An XOR of
the second pair (after Nf6 and after Ng1) gives a key matching the move Ng1. But
since the difference in each pair is the location of the white knight those keys
are "identical" (not quite because while there are 4 keys the the side to move
changed 3 times, so the keys differ by Zobrist::side). The loop containing line
1195 does this pair-wise XOR-ing.
Continuing the example, after line 1195 determines that the white pieces are
back where they started we still need to make sure the changes in the black
pieces represents a legal move. This is done by looking up the "moveKey" to
see if it corresponds to possible move, and that there are no pieces blocking
its way. There is the additional complication that, to match the behavior of
is_draw(), if the repetition is not inside the search tree then there must be
an additional repetition in the game history. Since a position can have more
than one upcoming repetition a simple count does not suffice. So there is a
search loop ending on line 1215.
On the other hand, the "no-progress' is the same thing but offset by 1 ply.
I like the concept but think it currently has minimal or negative benefit,
and I'd be happy to remove it if that would get the patch accepted. This
will not, however, save many lines of code.
-----------------------------
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 36430 W: 7446 L: 7150 D: 21834
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5afc123f0ebc591fdf408dfc
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 12998 W: 2045 L: 1876 D: 9077
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5afc2c630ebc591fdf408e0c
How could we continue after the patch:
• The code in search() that checks for cycles has numerous possible variants.
Perhaps the check need could be done in qsearch() too.
• The biggest improvement would be to get "no progress" to be of actual benefit,
and it would be helpful understand why it (probably) isn't. Perhaps there is an
interaction with the transposition table or the (fantastically complex) tree
search. Perhaps this would be hard to fix, but there may be a simple oversight.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1575
Bench: 4550412
At PvNodes allow bonus for prior counter move that caused a fail low
for depth 1 and 2. Note : I did a speculative LTC on yellow STC patch
since history stats tend to be highly TC sensitive
STC (Yellow):
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 64295 W: 13042 L: 12873 D: 38380
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af507c80ebc5968e6524153
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 22407 W: 3413 L: 3211 D: 15783
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af85dd40ebc591fdf408b87
Also use local variable excludedMove in NMP (marotear)
Bench: 5294316
This patch simplifies the control flow in search(), removing an if
and a goto. A side effect of the patch is that Stockfish is now a
little bit more selective at low depths, because we allow razoring,
futility pruning and probcut pruning after a null move.
passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 32035 W: 6523 L: 6422 D: 19090
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af142ca0ebc597fb3d39bb6
passed LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 41431 W: 6187 L: 6097 D: 29147
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af148770ebc597fb3d39bc1
Ideas for further work:
• Use the nodes credit opened by the patch (the increased selectivity)
to try somewhat higher razoring, futility or probcut margins at [0..4].
Bench: 4855031
Change the operators of the Option type in uci.h to accept floating
point numbers in double precision on input as the numerical type for
the "spin" values of the UCI protocol.
The output of Stockfish after the "uci" command is unaffected.
This change is compatible with all the existing GUI (as they will
continue sending integers that we can interpret as doubles in SF),
and allows us to pass double parameters to Stockfish in the console
via the "setoption" command. This will be useful if we implement
another tuner as an alternative for SPSA.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1556
No functional change.
---------------------
A example of the new functionality in action in the branch `tune_float2'`:
876c322d0f
I have added the following lines in ucioptions.cpp:
```C++
void on_pi(const Option& o)
{
double x = Options["PI"]; // or double x = o;
std::cerr << "received value is x = " << x << std::endl;
}
...
o["PI"] << Option(3.1415926, -10000000, 10000000, on_pi);
```
Then I can change the value of Pi in Stockfish via the command line, and
check that Stockfish understands a floating point:
````
> ./stockfish
> setoption name PI value 2.7182818284
received value is x = 2.71828
````
On output, the default value of Pi is truncated to 3 (to remain compatible
with the UCI protocol and GUIs):
````
> uci
[...]
option name SyzygyProbeLimit type spin default 6 min 0 max 6
option name PI type spin default 3 min -10000000 max 10000000
uciok
````
This patch corrects both MultiPV behaviour and "go searchmoves" behaviour
for tablebases.
We change the logic of table base probing at root positions from filtering
to ranking. The ranking code is much more straightforward than the current
filtering code (this is a simplification), and also more versatile.
If the root is a TB position, each root move is probed and assigned a TB score
and a TB rank. The TB score is the Value to be displayed to the user for that
move (unless the search finds a mate score), while the TB rank determines which
moves should appear higher in a multi-pv search. In game play, the engine will
always pick a move with the highest rank.
Ranks run from -1000 to +1000:
901 to 1000 : TB win
900 : normally a TB win, in rare cases this could be a draw
1 to 899 : cursed TB wins
0 : draw
-1 to -899 : blessed TB losses
-900 : normally a TB loss, in rare cases this could be a draw
-901 to -1000 : TB loss
Normally all winning moves get rank 1000 (to let the search pick the best
among them). The exception is if there has been a first repetition. In that
case, moves are ranked strictly by DTZ so that the engine will play a move
that lowers DTZ (and therefore cannot repeat the position a second time).
Losing moves get rank -1000 unless they have relatively high DTZ, meaning
they have some drawing chances. Those get ranks towards -901 (when they
cross -900 the draw is certain).
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1467
No functional change (without tablebases).
This patch introduces an Analysis Contempt UCI combo box to control
the behaviour of contempt during analysis. The possible values are
Both, Off, White, Black. Technically, the engine is supposed to be in
analysis mode if UCI_AnalyseMode is set by the graphical user interface
or if the user has chosen infinite analysis mode ("go infinite").
Credits: the idea for the combo box is due to Michel Van den Bergh.
No functional change (outside analysis mode).
-----------------------------------------------------
The so-called "contempt" is an optimism value that the engine adds
to one color to avoid simplifications and keep tension in the position
during its search. It was introduced in Stockfish 9 and seemed to give
good results during the TCEC 11 tournament (Stockfish seemed to play a
little bit more actively than in previous seasons).
The patch does not change the play during match or blitz play, but gives
more options for correspondance players to decide for which color(s) they
would like to use contempt in analysis mode (infinite time). Here is a
description of the various options:
* Both : in analysis mode, use the contempt for both players (alternating)
* Off : in analysis mode, use the contempt for none of the players
* White : in analysis mode, White will play actively, Black will play passively
* Black : in analysis mode, Black will play actively, White will play passively
We now use per-thread dynamic contempt. This patch has the following
effects:
* for Threads=1: **non-functional**
* for Threads>1:
* with MultiPV=1: **no regression, little to no ELO gain**
* with MultiPV>1: **clear improvement over master**
First, I tried testing at standard MultiPV=1 play with [0,5] bounds.
This yielded 2 yellow and 1 red test:
5+0.05, Threads=5:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 82689 W: 16439 L: 16190 D: 50060
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa93a5a0ebc5902952892e6
5+0.05, Threads=8:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 27164 W: 4974 L: 4983 D: 17207
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab2639b0ebc5902a6fbefd5
5+0.5, Threads=16:
LLR: -2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 41396 W: 7127 L: 7082 D: 27187
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab124220ebc59029516cb62
Then, I tested with Skill Level=17 (implicitly MutliPV=4), showing
a clear improvement:
5+0.05, Threads=5:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 3498 W: 1316 L: 1135 D: 1047
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab4b6580ebc5902932aeca2
Next, I tested the patch with MultiPV=1 again, this time checking for
non-regression ([-3, 1]):
5+0.5, Threads=5:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 65575 W: 12786 L: 12745 D: 40044
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab4e8500ebc5902932aecb3
Finally, I ran some tests with fixed number of games, checking if
reverting dynamic contempt gains more elo with Skill Level=17 (i.e.
MultiPV) than applying the "prevScore" fix and this patch. These tests
showed, that this patch gains 15 ELO when playing with Skill Level=17:
5+0.05, Threads=3, "revert dynamic contempt" vs. "WITHOUT this patch":
ELO: -11.43 +-4.1 (95%) LOS: 0.0%
Total: 20000 W: 7085 L: 7743 D: 5172
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab636450ebc590295d88536
5+0.05, Threads=3, "revert dynamic contempt" vs. "WITH this patch":
ELO: -26.42 +-4.1 (95%) LOS: 0.0%
Total: 20000 W: 6661 L: 8179 D: 5160
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab62e680ebc590295d88524
---
***FAQ***
**Why should this be commited?**
I believe that the gain for multi-thread MultiPV search is a sufficient
justification for this otherwise neutral change. I also believe this
implementation of dynamic contempt is more logical, although this may
be just my opinion.
**Why is per-thread contempt better at MultiPV?**
A likely explanation for the gain in MultiPV mode is that during
search each thread independently switches between rootMoves and via
the shared contempt score skews each other's evaluation.
**Why were the tests done with Skill Level=17?**
This was originally suggested by @Hanamuke and the idea is that with
Skill Level Stockfish sometimes plays also moves it thinks are slightly
sub-optimal and thus the quality of all moves offered by the MultiPV
search is checked by the test.
**Why are the ELO differences so huge?**
This is most likely because of the nature of Skill Level mode --
since it slower and weaker than normal mode, bugs in evaluation have
much greater effect.
---
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1515.
No functional change -- in single thread mode.
Adjust criterion for applying extra reduction if not improving.
We now add an extra ply of reduction if r > 1.0, instead of the
previous condition Reductions[NonPV][imp][d][mc] >= 2.
Why does this work? Previously, reductions when not improving had
a discontinuity as the depth and/or move count increases due to the
Reductions[NonPV][imp][d][mc] >= 2 condition. Hence, values of r
such that 0.5 < r < 1.5 would be mapped to a reduction of 1, while
1.5 < r < 2.5 would be mapped to a reduction of 3. This patch allows
values of r satisfying 1.0 < r < 1.5 to be mapped to a reduction of 2,
making the reduction formula more continuous.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 35908 W: 7382 L: 7087 D: 21439
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aba723a0ebc5902a4743e8f
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 23087 W: 3584 L: 3378 D: 16125
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aba89070ebc5902a4743ea9
Ideas for future work:
- We could look at retuning the LMR formula.
- We could look at adjusting the reductions in PV nodes if not improving.
Bench: 5326261
