To verify that the end position from the PV matches the
evaluation score after these changes
We need to temporarily disable the qsearch tt-value refinement,
as that will change the score returned.
When comparing to a Depth it is more
consistent to use DEPTH_MAX instead
of a int.
This is a subtle difference because we use
ply and depth almost interchangably in SF,
but they are different. FOr counting plies
makes ense to continue using ints, while
for Depth we have our specific enum.
This cleanly fixes a new Clang 3.5 warning:
No functional change.
This gives SF accurate PVs, such that the evaluation of the leaf node in
the PV matches the score backed up to the root (99% of the time.
q-search will use the value stored in the hash table instead of the eval
value sometimes).
One drawback is that fail-high/low only get a minimal 2 move PV.
It doesn't add any additional overhead to the non-PV codepath except an
extra eight bytes to the SearchStack structure in multi-threaded
searches.
A core part of this is not pruning based on TT score in PV nodes. This
was measured as not being a regression at multiple TCs, except for one
exception, fast TC with huge hash, which is not realistic for longer
searches.
STC - 1 thread, 128 mb hash
ELO: 1.42 +-3.1 (95%) LOS: 81.9%
Total: 20000 W: 4078 L: 3996 D: 11926
STC - 3 thread, 128 mb hash
ELO: -3.60 +-2.9 (95%) LOS: 0.8%
Total: 20000 W: 3575 L: 3782 D: 12643
STC - 3 thread, 8 mb hash
ELO: 0.12 +-2.9 (95%) LOS: 53.3%
Total: 20000 W: 3654 L: 3647 D: 12699
LTC - 3 thread, 32mb hash
ELO: 2.29 +-2.0 (95%) LOS: 98.8%
Total: 35740 W: 5618 L: 5382 D: 24740
Bench: 6984058
Resolves#102
Real men jump/branch by hand...but
we prefer the humble way.
Moved also some uci info code where it
belongs, while there.
No functional change.
Resolves#110
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
