It is up to material (and pawn) table look up
code to know where the per-thread tables are,
so change API to reflect this.
Also some comment fixing while there
No functional change.
Move all in evaluation.
Simplify the code and concentrate in a single place
all the logic behind space evaluation, making it much
more clear.
Verified also at STC it does not regress due to a possible
slow down:
LLR: 3.91 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 65744 W: 13285 L: 13194 D: 39265
No functional change.
The evaluation is already done by the specialized
function, don't need to add something elese later.
With this patch following positions are evaluated
correctly as draws:
8/6p1/1Pkp1p1p/2nNn2P/2P1K1P1/8/8/3B4 w - - 7
8/1k4p1/1P1p1p1p/3NnK1P/2P3P1/1n6/4B3/8 w - -
Verified it not regress with an STC test:
LLR: 3.15 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 49812 W: 10095 L: 10016 D: 29701
Reported by Arjun Temurnikar.
bench: 8289983
Idea is to apply king safety later in the endgame. Previously, we didn't
apply KS in a RR vs. Q ending for example, which causes poor play.
Now we calculate king attacks when the attacking side has a queen or more.
STC with 8moves_v3
LLR: 3.06 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 38481 W: 6228 L: 5952 D: 26301
LTC with 2moves_v1
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 51053 W: 8670 L: 8353 D: 34030
Bench: 7514010
Resolves#98
Helper function should just know how to find the
biggest piece type in a bitboard. All the threat
logic and data shoud be in evaluate_threats().
This nicely separates the scope of the two functions
in a more consistent way and simplifies the code.
No functional change.
Use the max_threat() helper function to estimate more precisely the
best hanging piece threat. Also retunes the Threat array using SPSA.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 7598 W: 1596 L: 1468 D: 4534
LTC
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 7896 W: 1495 L: 1350 D: 5051
Bench: 6816504
Resolves#73
These two notions are very correlated. Since connected has the most
generality, it makes sense to generalize it to encompass what is
covered by candidate.
STC:
LLR: 4.03 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 11970 W: 2577 L: 2379 D: 7014
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 13194 W: 2389 L: 2255 D: 8550
bench 7328585
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
There is really little that user can achieve (apart
from a weakened engine) tweaking these parameters
that are already tuned and have no immediate or visible
effect.
So better do not expose them to the user and avoid the
typical "What is the best setup for my machine?" kind of
question (by far the most common, by far the most useless).
No functional change.
Retire current asymmetric king evaluation
and use a much simpler symmetric one.
As a side effect retire the infamous
'Aggressiveness' and 'Cowardice' UCI
options.
Tested in no-regression mode,
Passed both STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 33855 W: 5863 L: 5764 D: 22228
And LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40571 W: 5852 L: 5760 D: 28959
bench: 8321835
Unfortunatly we have a slow down that causes
a regression in STC with no-regression mode:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 22454 W: 3836 L: 4029 D: 14589
bench: 8678654
