Currently, helper threads will only search up to the
specified depth limit. Now let them search until the
main thread has finished the specified depth.
On the other hand, we don't want to pick a thread with
a higher search depth.
This may be considered cheating. ;-)
No functional change.
And passed in do_move(), this ensures maximum efficiency and
speed and at the same time unlimited move numbers.
The draw back is that to handle Position init we need to
reserve a StateInfo inside Position itself and use at
init time and when copying from another Position.
After lazy SMP we don't need anymore this gimmick and we can
get rid of this special case and always pass an external
StateInfo to Position object.
Also rewritten and simplified Position constructors.
Verified it does not regress with a 3 threads SMP test:
ELO: -0.00 +-12.7 (95%) LOS: 50.0%
Total: 1000 W: 173 L: 173 D: 654
No functional change.
When starting search in a mate or stalemate position, Stockfish does not
even care to reinitialize and start worker threads. However after search
all threads are checked for the best move.
This can lead to bestmove and info beeing carried over from the last
search.
Example session:
setoption name threads value 7
go movetime 4000
position startpos moves f2f3 e7e5 g2g4 d8h4
go movetime 4000
Actual output is like (almost always):
[...]
bestmove e2e4
info depth 0 score mate 0
info depth 20 seldepth 29 multipv 1 score cp 28 [...] pv e2e4
bestmove e2e4
Expected output / output after fix:
[...]
bestmove e2e4 ponder e7e6
info depth 0 score mate 0
bestmove (none)
Resolves#623
PredictedDepth can be negative, causing the futility_margin to be negative.
It will be very difficult to tweak moveCount pruning and reduction formula, as they are tuned to prevent this behavior.
No functional change
Resolves#587
There is no reason to compile 3 different copies of search(). PV nodes are on
the cold path, and PvNode is a template parameter, so there is no cost in
computing:
const bool RootNode = PvNode && (ss-1)->ply == 0;
And this simplifies code a tiny bit as well.
Speed impact is negligible on my machine (i7-3770k, linux 4.2, gcc 5.2):
nps +/-
test 2378605 3118
master 2383128 2793
diff -4523 2746
Bench: 7751425
No functional change.
Resolves#568
Make it explicit that those variables are not globals, but
are used only by main thread. I think it is a sensible
clarification because easy move is already tricky enough
and current patch makes the involved actors explicit.
No functional change.
Resolves#537
Fix a bug where we could stop the search after only 10% of time used due to a matching easy move but later switch to a different move that was never pre-screened as easy due to SMP thread select.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 27227 W: 4910 L: 4800 D: 17517
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40368 W: 5826 L: 5733 D: 28809
Resolves#521
Simplify time management code by removing hard stops for unchanging first root moves.
Search is now stopped earlier at the end iteration if it did not have fail-lows at root.
This simplification also fixes pondering bug. Ponder flag was true by default
and cutechess-cli doesn't change it to false even though no pondering is possible.
Fix the issue by setting the default value of 'Ponder' flag to false.
10+0.1:
ELO: 3.51 +-3.0 (95%) LOS: 99.0%
Total: 20000 W: 3898 L: 3696 D: 12406
40+0.4:
ELO: 1.39 +-2.7 (95%) LOS: 84.7%
Total: 20000 W: 3104 L: 3024 D: 13872
60+0.06:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 37231 W: 5333 L: 5236 D: 26662
Stopped run at 100+1:
LLR: 1.09 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 37253 W: 4862 L: 4856 D: 27535
Resolves#523Fixes#510
Instead of creating a running std::thread and
returning, wait in Thread c'tor that the native
thread of execution goes to sleep in idle_loop().
In this way we can simplify how search is started,
because when main thread is idle we are sure also
all other threads will be idle, in any case, even
at thread creation and startup.
After lazy smp went in, we can simpify and rewrite
a lot of logic that is now no more needed. This is
hopefully the final big cleanup.
Tested for no regression at 5+0.1 with 3 threads:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-5.00,0.00]
Total: 17411 W: 3248 L: 3198 D: 10965
No functional change.
Now that we don't have anymore TimerThread, there is
no need of this long class hierarchy.
Also assorted reformatting while there.
To verify no regression, passed at STC with 7 threads:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [-5.00,0.00]
Total: 30990 W: 4945 L: 4942 D: 21103
No functional change.
When we reach the maximum depth, we can finish the
search without a raise of Signals.stop. However, if
we are pondering or in an infinite search, the UCI
protocol states that we shouldn't print the best move
before the GUI sends a "stop" or "ponderhit" command.
It was broken by lazy smp. Fix it by moving the stopping
of the threads after waiting for GUI.
No functional change.
Indeed, if we use a depth >= DEPTH_MAX, we start having negative depth in the
TT (due to int8_t cast).
No functional change in single thread mode
Resolves#490
Unfortunately std::condition_variable::wait_for()
is not accurate in general case and the timer thread
can wake up also after tens or even hundreds of
millisecs after time has elapsded. CPU load, process
priorities, number of concurrent threads, even from
other processes, will have effect upon it.
Even official documentation says: "This function may
block for longer than timeout_duration due to scheduling
or resource contention delays."
So retire timer and use a polling scheme based on a
local thread counter that counts search() calls and
a small trick to keep polling frequency constant,
independently from the number of threads.
Tested for no regression at very fast TC 2+0.05 th 7:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 32969 W: 6720 L: 6620 D: 19629
TC 2+0.05 th 1:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 7765 W: 1917 L: 1765 D: 4083
And at STC TC, both single thread
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 15587 W: 3036 L: 2905 D: 9646
And with 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 8149 W: 1367 L: 1227 D: 5555
bench: 8639247
The only interesting change is the moving of
stack[MAX_PLY+4] back to its original position
in id_loop (now renamed Thread::search).
No functional change.
Reduce the variation in Root Depth between different threads. This
prevents threads from searching at a depth much higher than Main Thread.
Performed well at STC 24 Threads:
ELO: 3.44 +-3.8 (95%) LOS: 96.1%
Total: 10000 W: 1627 L: 1528 D: 6845
And LTC 24 Threads
LLR: 1.43 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 3804 W: 500 L: 420 D: 2884
ELO : +7.31
p-value: 73.16%
Passed no regression at STC 3 Threads:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40457 W: 7148 L: 7060 D: 26249
And LTC 3 Threads:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17704 W: 2489 L: 2364 D: 12851
Raising a pull request early as 24 Thread tests are very expensive and
this is clearly a positive gain at high thread counts and high time
controls. The change is a small parameter tweak with no additional
logic.
No functional change for single thread mode.
Resolves#481
Rely on well defined behaviour for message passing, instead of volatile. Three
versions have been tested, to make sure this wouldn't cause a slowdown on any
platform.
v1: Sequentially consistent atomics
No mesurable regression, despite the extra memory barriers on x86. Even with 15
threads and extreme time pressure, both acting as a magnifying glass:
threads=15, tc=2+0.02
ELO: 2.59 +-3.4 (95%) LOS: 93.3%
Total: 18132 W: 4113 L: 3978 D: 10041
threads=7, tc=2+0.02
ELO: -1.64 +-3.6 (95%) LOS: 18.8%
Total: 16914 W: 4053 L: 4133 D: 8728
v2: Acquire/Release semantics
This version generates no extra barriers for x86 (on the hot path). As expected,
no regression either, under the same conditions:
threads=15, tc=2+0.02
ELO: 2.85 +-3.3 (95%) LOS: 95.4%
Total: 19661 W: 4640 L: 4479 D: 10542
threads=7, tc=2+0.02
ELO: 0.23 +-3.5 (95%) LOS: 55.1%
Total: 18108 W: 4326 L: 4314 D: 9468
As suggested by Joona, another test at LTC:
threads=15, tc=20+0.05
ELO: 0.64 +-2.6 (95%) LOS: 68.3%
Total: 20000 W: 3053 L: 3016 D: 13931
v3: Final version: SeqCst/Relaxed
threads=15, tc=10+0.1
ELO: 0.87 +-3.9 (95%) LOS: 67.1%
Total: 9541 W: 1478 L: 1454 D: 6609
Resolves#474
