This patch implements some idea by Alain Savard and Mike Whiteley taken from the perpertual renaming/reformatting thread.
This is a pure code cleaning patch (so no change in functionality), but I use it as a pretext to correct the bogus bench number that I introduced in the previous commit.
Bench: 4413383
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
There seems to be some strange interaction between Overload and Connectivity.
Overload encourages us to not have too many defended and attacked pieces,
as this may expose us to various tactics. This feels somewhat like it is in
conflict with Connectivity, where pieces are defended preemptively.
Here I take the "pick one or the other" approach and just remove connectivity,
while strengthening the effect of Overload to compensate. The reasoning is that
if we defend our pieces preemptively, then it does get attacked, we want to do
something about it so we don't get penalized by Overload. On the other
hand, if it doesn't get attacked, then there's no need to defend it.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 27734 W: 6174 L: 6064 D: 15496
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b5073bd0ebc5902bdb7ba5c
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 51606 W: 8897 L: 8827 D: 33882
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b50aa900ebc5902bdb7bf29
Bench: 4658006
After some recent big tuning session, the values for King Protector were
simplified to only be used on minor pieces. This patch tries to further
simplify by just using a single value, since current S(6,5) and S(5,6)
are close to each other. The value S(6,6) ended up passing, although
S(5,5) was also tried and failed STC.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 14261 W: 3288 L: 3151 D: 7822
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b4ccdf50ebc5902bdb77f65
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 19606 W: 3396 L: 3273 D: 12937
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b4ce4280ebc5902bdb7803b
Bench: 5448998
Extend the bonus for Overload to cases where our side
has more than one attacker to a non pawn piece.
Based on an idea by Bryan in the forum. For instance,
now black gets the overload bonus in this position:
8/5R1k/6pb/p6p/P1N4P/1Pp5/2K3P1/2N4r b - - 6 46
because two black pieces are attacking the knight on c1
that is defended only by the king.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 57446 W: 12762 L: 12711 D: 31973
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b4ca9970ebc5902bdb77a88
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 42113 W: 7295 L: 7209 D: 27609
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b4ccea00ebc5902bdb77f69
Bench: 4667263
For the rationale to allow this, see commit
a66c73deef
This was broken when cuckoo hashing was added, and
subtly broke (for example) lichess' Android application,
thus illustrating the original judgement was sound.
No functional change.
Various king and pawn eval values tuned after 2 million games. Rounding
slightly adjusted.
LTC: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b477a260ebc5978f4be3ed4
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 32783 W: 5852 L: 5588 D: 21343
STC: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b472d420ebc5978f4be3e4d
LLR: 3.23 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 44380 W: 10201 L: 9841 D: 24338
I think I reached the limit of the fishtest framework. It frequently
crashed at 2 million games already. The small values also moved a lot
throughout the entire tuning session though with smaller margin. The
passed danger and close enemies values seems the most sensitive (changing
close enemies alone to 6 failed before but now it passes), whether or not
they are close to optimal I don't know, but it seems some parameters are
also correlated to others.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1670
bench: 5103722
In the current master, ThreatByKing is an array of two Scores, one for
when we have a single attack and one for when we have many. The latter
case is very rarely called during bench and was recently given a strange
negative value during a tuning run, as pointed out by @candirufish on
commit efd4ca2. Here, we simplify away this second case entirely, and
increase the remaining ThreatByKing to compensate.
Although I derived the parameter tweak independently, with the goal of
preserving the same average bonus, I later noticed that a very similar
Score had already been derived by an ongoing SPSA tuning session.
I therefore recognize @candirufish for first discovering these values.
I would also like to thank @Rocky640 for valuable feedback that pointed
me in the direction of ThreatByKing.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 7677 W: 1772 L: 1623 D: 4282
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b3db0320ebc5902b9ffe97a
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 108031 W: 18329 L: 18350 D: 71352
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b3dbf4b0ebc5902b9ffe9db
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1666
Bench: 4678861
In current master, the function make_bitboard() does nothing apart from
helping initialize the SquareBB[] array. This seems like an unnecessary
abstraction layer.
The advantage of make_bitboard() is we can define a bitboard, in a simple
and general way, not only from a single square but also from a list of
squares. It is more elegant, faster and readable than combining multiple
SquareBB explicitly, but the last complex use case in evaluation was
simplified away a few months ago.
If make_bitboard() becomes useful again to define complicated bitboards,
it will be easy enough to reintroduce it using this pull request as
an implementation reference.
No functional change.
Make sure each piece is not scored more than once as a passed pawn "hinderer",
by scoring only the blockers along the passed pawn path. Inspired by TCEC Game 29.
Passed STC as a simplification
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b3016d00ebc5902b2e58552
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 75388 W: 16656 L: 16641 D: 42091
Passed LTC as a simplification
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b302ed90ebc5902b2e587fc
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 49157 W: 8460 L: 8386 D: 32311
Current master was also counting the number of attacks along a passed pawn path,
which might be misleading:
a) a defender might be counted many times for the same pawn path. For example a
White rook on a1 attacking a black pawn on a7 would score the bonus * 6 but
would be probably better placed on a8
b) a defender might be counted on different pawn paths and might be overloaded. For
example a Ke4 or Qe4 against pawns on d6 and f6 would score the bonus * 6.
Counting each blocker or attacker only once is more complicated, and does not help
either: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b2ff1cb0ebc5902b2e582b2
After this small simplification, there might be ways to increase the HinderPassedPawn
penalty.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1661
Bench: 4520519
Silences the following warnings when compiling with GCC 8.
The fix is to use an intermediate pointer to anonymous function:
```
misc.cpp: In function 'int WinProcGroup::get_group(size_t)':
misc.cpp:241:77: warning: cast between incompatible function types from 'FARPROC' {aka 'long long int (*)()'} to 'fun1_t' {aka 'bool (*)(_LOGICAL_PROCESSOR_RELATIONSHIP, _SYSTEM_LOGICAL_PROCESSOR_INFORMATION_EX*, long unsigned int*)'} [-Wcast-function-type]
auto fun1 = (fun1_t)GetProcAddress(k32, "GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx");
^
misc.cpp: In function 'void WinProcGroup::bindThisThread(size_t)':
misc.cpp:309:71: warning: cast between incompatible function types from 'FARPROC' {aka 'long long int (*)()'} to 'fun2_t' {aka 'bool (*)(short unsigned int, _GROUP_AFFINITY*)'} [-Wcast-function-type]
auto fun2 = (fun2_t)GetProcAddress(k32, "GetNumaNodeProcessorMaskEx");
^
misc.cpp:310:67: warning: cast between incompatible function types from 'FARPROC' {aka 'long long int (*)()'} to 'fun3_t' {aka 'bool (*)(void*, const _GROUP_AFFINITY*, _GROUP_AFFINITY*)'} [-Wcast-function-type]
auto fun3 = (fun3_t)GetProcAddress(k32, "SetThreadGroupAffinity");
^
```
No functional change.
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.
[STC](http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b2614000ebc5902b8d17193)
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17733 W: 3996 L: 3866 D: 9871
[LTC](http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b264d0f0ebc5902b8d17206)
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 55524 W: 9535 L: 9471 D: 36518
Use pawn count scaling also for opposite bishops endings with additional material, with a slope of 2 instead of 7. This simplifies slightly the code.
This PR is a functionally equivalent refactoring of the version which was submitted.
Four versions tried, 2 passed both STC and LTC. I picked the one which seemed more promising at LTC.
Slope 4 passed STC (-0.54 Elo), LTC not attempted
Slope 3 passed STC (+2.51 Elo), LTC (-0.44 Elo)
Slope 2 passed STC (+2.09 Elo), LTC (+0.04 Elo)
Slope 1 passed STC (+0.90 Elo), failed LTC (-3.40 Elo)
Bench: 4761613
I believe using foward_file_bb() here is fewer instructions.
a) Fewer instructions and probably more clear (debatable).
b) Possible that a lookup is slower than a few local operations, but the
forward_file_bb table is probably used often enough that it is always
cached.
Passed
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 21004 W: 4263 L: 4141 D: 12600
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b1cad830ebc5902ab9c6239
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1644
No functional change.
After a helpful suggestion from AppVeyor support staff, moving the Stockfish
execution from ps to cmd seems to work. Alternative to PR #1624 tested in PR #1637.
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
The function Position::has_repeated() is used by Tablebases::root_probe()
to determine whether we can rank all winning moves with the same value, or
if we need to strictly rank by dtz in case the position has already been
repeated once, and we are risking to run into the 50-move rule and thus
losing the win (especially critical in some very complicated endgames).
To check whether the current position or one of the previous positions
after the last zeroing move has already been occured once, we start looking
for a repetition of the current position, and if that is not the case, we
step one position back and repeat the check for that position, and so on.
If you now look at how this was done before the new root ranking patch was
merged two months ago, it seems quite obvious that it is a simple oversight:
108f0da4d7
More specifically, after we stepped one position back with
```
stc = stc->previous;
```
we now have to start checking for a repetition with
```
StateInfo* stp = stc->previous->previous;
```
and not with
```
StateInfo* stp = st->previous->previous;
```
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1625
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.
