This updates estimates from 1.5 year ago, and adds missing terms. All estimates
from tests run on fishtest at 10+0.1 (STC), 20000 games, error bars +- 3 Elo,
see the original message in the pull request for the full list of tests.
Noteworthy changes are step 7 (futility pruning) going from ~30 to ~50 Elo
and step 13 (pruning at shallow depth) going from ~170 to ~200 Elo.
Full list of tests: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2401
@Rocky640 made the suggestion to look at time control dependence of these terms.
I picked two large terms (early futility pruning and singular extension), so with
small relative error. It turns out it is actually quite interesting (see figure 1).
Contrary to my expectation, the Elo gain for early futility pruning is pretty time
control sensitive, while singular extension gain is not.
Figure 1: TC dependence of two search terms
Going back to the old measurement of futility pruning (30 Elo vs today 50 Elo),
the code is actually identical but the margins have changed. It seems like a nice
example of how connected terms in search really are, i.e. the value of early futility
pruning increased significantly due to changes elsewhere in search.
No functional change.
User "adentong" reported recently of a game where Stockfish blundered a game
in a tournament because during a search there was an hash-table issue for
positions inside the tree very close to the 50-moves draw rule. This is part
of a problem which is commonly referred to as the Graph History Interaction (GHI),
and is difficult to solve in computer chess because storing the 50-moves counter
in the hash-table loses Elo in general.
Links:
Issue 2451 : https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/2451
About the GHI : https://www.chessprogramming.org/Graph_History_Interaction
This patch tries to address the issue in this particular game and similar
reported games: it prevents that values from the transposition table are
getting used when the 50-move counter is close to reaching 100 (). The idea
is that in such cases values from previous searches, with a much lower 50-move
count, become less and less reliable.
More precisely, the heuristic we use in this patch is that we don't take the
transposition table cutoff when we have reached a 45-moves limit, but let the
search continue doing its job. There is a possible slowdown involved, but it will
also help to find either a draw when it thought to be losing, or a way to avoid
the draw by 50-move rule. This heuristics probably will not fix all possible cases,
but seems to be working reasonably well in practice while not losing too much Elo.
Passed non-regression tests:
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 274452 W: 59700 L: 60075 D: 154677
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5df546116932658fe9b451bf
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 95235 W: 15297 L: 15292 D: 64646
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5df69c926932658fe9b4520e
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2453
Bench: 4586187
SEE (Static Exchange Evaluation) is a critical component, so we might
indulge some tricks to make it faster. Another pull request #2469 showed
some speedup by removing templates, this version uses Ronald de Man
(@syzygy1) SEE implementation which also unrolls the for loop by
suppressing the min_attacker() helper function and exits as soon as
the last swap is conclusive.
See Ronald de Man version there:
https://github.com/syzygy1/Cfish/blob/master/src/position.c
Patch testes against pull request #2469:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.00,3.00}
Total: 19365 W: 3771 L: 3634 D: 11960
Ptnml(0-2): 241, 1984, 5099, 2092, 255
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e10eb135e5436dd91b27ba3
And since we are using new SPRT statistics, and that both pull requests
finished with less than 20000 games I also tested against master as
a speed-up:
LLR: 2.99 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.00,3.00}
Total: 18878 W: 3674 L: 3539 D: 11665
Ptnml(0-2): 193, 1999, 4966, 2019, 250
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e10febf12ef906c8b388745
Non functional change
This patch excludes blockers for king from mobility area. It was tried a couple
of times by now but now it passed. Performance is not enormously good but this
patch makes a lot of sence - blockers for king can't really move until king moves
(in most cases) so logic behind it is the same as behind excluding king square
from mobility area.
STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dec388651219d7befdc76be
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 6155 W: 1428 L: 1300 D: 3427
LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dec4a3151219d7befdc76d3
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 120800 W: 19636 L: 19134 D: 82030
Bench: 5173081
This patch simplifies latest @MJZ1977 elo gainer. Seems like PvNode check in
condition of last capture extension is not needed. Note - even if this is a
simplification it actually causes this extension to be applied more often, thus
strengthening effect of @MJZ1977's patch.
passed STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5deb9a3eb7bdefd50db28d0e
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 80244 W: 17421 L: 17414 D: 45409
passed LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5deba860b7bdefd50db28d11
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 21506 W: 3565 L: 3446 D: 14495
Bench: 5097036
As reported on the forum it is possible, on very rare occasions, that we are
trying to print a PV line with an invalid previousScore, although this line
has a valid actual score. This patch fixes output of PV lines with invalid
scores in a MultiPV search. This is a follow-up patch to 8b15961 and makes
the fix finally complete.
The reason is the i <= pvIdx condition which probably is a leftover from the
times there was a special root search function. This check is no longer needed
today and prevents PV lines past the current one (current pvIdx) to be flagged
as updated even though they do have a valid score.
8b15961349https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/fishcooking/PrnoDLvMvro
No functional change.
the removed line is not needed, since with the conditions on SE, eval
equals ttValue (except inCheck), which must be larger than beta if the second condition
is true.
The removed line is also incorrect as eval might be VALUE_NONE at this
location if inCheck. This removal addresses part of https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2406#issuecomment-552642608
No functional change.
this patch extends bench to print static evaluations.
./stockfish bench 16 1 1 filename eval
will now print the evaluations for all fens in the file.
This complements the various 'go' flavors for bench and might be useful for debugging and/or tuning.
No functional change.
In a recent commit, "Introduce king flank defenders," a term was introduced
by Michael Chaly (@Vizvezdenec) to reduce king danger based on king defenders,
i.e., friendly attacks on our King Flank and Camp. This is a powerful idea
and broadly applicable to all of our pieces.
An earlier, but narrower, version of a similar idea was already coded into
king danger, with a term reducing king danger simply if we had a bishop and
king attacking the same square -- there is also a similar term for knights,
but roughly three times larger. I had attempted to tweak this term's coefficient
fairly recently, in a series of tests in early September which increased this
coefficient. All failed STC with significantly negative scores.
Now that the king flank defenders term has been introduced, it appears that
the bishop-defense term can be simplified away without compensation or
significant Elo loss.
Where do we go from here? This PR is a natural follow-up to "Introduce king
flank defenders," which proposed simplification with existing and overlapping
terms, such as this one. That PR also mentioned that the coefficient it
introduced appeared arbitrary, so perhaps this PR can facilitate a tweak to
increase king flank defenders' coefficient.
Additionally, this pull request is extremely similar to https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1821,
which was (coincidentally) merged a year ago, to the day (November 23, 2018).
That patch also simplified away a linear king danger tropism term, which was
soon after replaced with a quadratic term by @Vizvezdenec (which would not have
passed without the simplification). @Vizvezdenec, again by coincidence, has
recently been trying to implement a quadratic term, this time for defenders
rather than attackers. This history of this evaluation code suggests that
this simplification might be enough to help a patch for quadratic king-flank
defenders pass.
Bench: 4959670
STC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 22209 W: 4920 L: 4800 D: 12489
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dd444d914339111b9b6bed7
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 152107 W: 24658 L: 24743 D: 102706
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dd4be31f531e81cf278ea9d
Interesting discussion on Github about this pull request:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2424
---
This pull request was opened less than one week before the holiday of
Thanksgiving here in the United States. In keeping with the holiday
tradition of expressing gratitude, I would like to thank our generous
CPU donors, talented forum contributors, innovative developers, speedy
fishtest approvers, and especially our hardworking server maintainers
(@ppigazzini and @tomtor). Thank you all for a year of great Stockfish
progress!
This patch measures how frequently search is exploring new configurations.
This is done be computing a running average of ttHit. The ttHitAverage rate
is somewhat low (e.g. 30% for startpos) in the normal case, while it can be
very high if no progress is made (e.g. 90% for the fortress I used for testing).
This information can be used to influence search. In this patch, by adjusting
reductions if the rate > 50%. A first version (using a low ttHitAverageResolution
and this 50% threshold) passed testing:
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 26425 W: 5837 L: 5650 D: 14938
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dcede8b0ebc5902563258fa
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 32313 W: 5392 L: 5128 D: 21793
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dcefb1f0ebc590256325c0e
However, as discussed in pull request 2414, using a larger ttHitAverageResolution
gives a better approximation of the underlying distributions. This needs a slight
adjustment for the threshold as the new distributions are shifted a bit compared
to the older ones, and this threshold seemingly is sensitive (we used 0.53125 here).
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2414
This final version also passed testing, and is used for the patch:
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 16025 W: 3555 L: 3399 D: 9071
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dd070b90ebc5902579e20c2
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 37576 W: 6277 L: 5998 D: 25301
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dd0f58e6f544e798086f224
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2414
Bench: 4989584
This patch implements what we have been trying for quite some time -
dependance of kingdanger on balance of attackers and defenders of king
flank, to avoid overestimate attacking power if the opponent has enough
defenders of king position. We already have some form of it in bishop
and knight defenders - this is further work in this direction.
What to do based on this?
1) constant 4 is arbitrary, maybe it is not optimal
2) maybe we can use quadratic formula as in kingflankattack
3) simplification into alrealy existing terms is always a possibility :)
4) overall kingdanger tuning always can be done.
passed STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dcf40560ebc590256325f30
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 26298 W: 5819 L: 5632 D: 14847
passed LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dcfa5760ebc590256326464
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 30600 W: 5042 L: 4784 D: 20774
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2415
Bench: 4496847
Introduce OutpostRank[RANK_NB] which contains a bonus according to
the rank of the outpost. We use it for the primary Outpost bonus.
The values are based on the trends of the SPSA tuning run with some
manual tweaks.
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 27454 W: 6059 L: 5869 D: 15526
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dcadba20ebc590256922f09
Passed LTC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 57950 W: 9443 L: 9112 D: 39395
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dcaea880ebc5902569230bc
Bench: 4778405
----------------------------
The inspiration for this patch came from Stefan Geschwentner's attempt
of modifying BishopPawns into a rank-based penalty. Michael Stembera
suggested that maybe the S(0, 0) ranks (3rd, 7th and also maybe 8th)
can still be tuned. This would expand our definition of Outpost and
OutpostRanks would be removed altogether. Special thanks to Mark Tenzer
for all the help and excellent suggestions.
The removed lines approximately duplicate equivalent logic in the movePicker.
Adjust the futility_move_count to componsate for some difference
(the movePicker prunes one iteration of the move loop later).
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 8114 W: 1810 L: 1663 D: 4641
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dc6afe60ebc5902562bd318
Passed LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 89956 W: 14473 L: 14460 D: 61023
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dc6bdcf0ebc5902562bd3c0
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2407
Bench: 4256440
---------------------
How to continue from there?
It would be interesting to see if we can extract some Elo gain
from the new futility_move_count formula, for instance by somehow
incorporating the final -1 in the 5 constant, or adding a linear
term to the quadratics...
```
futility_move_count = (5 + depth * depth) * (1 + improving) / 2 - 1
```
Current master 648c7ec25d will generate an
incorrect mate score for:
```
setoption name Hash value 8
setoption name Threads value 1
position fen 8/1p2KP2/1p4q1/1Pp5/2P5/N1Pp1k2/3P4/1N6 b - - 76 40
go depth 49
```
even though the position is a draw. Generally, SF tries to display only
proven mate scores, so this is a bug.
This was posted http://www.talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=72166
by Uri Blass, with the correct analysis that this must be related to the
50 moves draw rule being ignored somewhere.
Indeed, this is possible as positions and there eval are stored in the TT,
without reference to the 50mr counter. Depending on the search path followed
a position can thus be mate or draw in the TT (GHI or Graph history interaction).
Therefore, to prove mate lines, the TT content has to be used with care. Rather
than ignoring TT content in general or for mate scores (which impact search or
mate finding), it is possible to be more selective. In particular, @WOnder93
suggested to only ignore the TT if the 50mr draw ply is closer than the mate
ply. This patch implements this idea, by clamping the eval in the TT to
+-VALUE_MATED_IN_MAX_PLY. This retains the TTmove, but causes a research of
these lines (with the current 50mr counter) as needed.
This patch hardly ever affects search (as indicated by the unchanged
bench), but fixes the testcase. As the conditions are very specific,
also mate finding will almost never be less efficient (testing welcome).
It was also shown to pass STC and LTC non-regression testing, in a form
using if/then/else instead of ternary operators:
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 93605 W: 15346 L: 15340 D: 62919
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5db45bb00ebc5908127538d4
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 33873 W: 7359 L: 7261 D: 19253
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5db4c8940ebc5902d6b146fc
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/2370
Bench: 4362323
This reverts the previous commit. The PSQT changes in this previous
commit originated from tests against quite an old version of master
which did not include the other PSQT changes of 474d133 for the other
pieces, and there might be some unknown interactions between the PSQT
tables. So we made a non-regression test of the last commit against the
last-but-one commit. This test failed, leading to the revert decision.
Failed non-regression test:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 95536 W: 15047 L: 15347 D: 65142
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dc0ba1d0ebc5904493b0112
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2395
Bench: 4362323
As Stockfish developers, we aim to make our code as legible and as close
to simple English as possible. However, one of the more notable exceptions
to this rule concerns operations between Squares and Bitboards.
Prior to this pull request, AND, OR, and XOR were only defined when the
Bitboard was the first operand, and the Square the second. For example,
for a Bitboard b and Square s, "b & s" would be valid but "s & b" would not.
This conflicts with natural reasoning about logical operators, both
mathematically and intuitively, which says that logical operators should
commute.
More dangerously, however, both Square and Bitboard are defined as integers
"under the hood." As a result, code like "s & b" would still compile and give
reasonable bench values. This trap occasionally ensnares even experienced
Stockfish developers, but it is especially dangerous for new developers not
aware of this peculiarity. Because there is no compilation or runtime error,
and a reasonable bench, only a close review by approvers can spot this error
when a test has been submitted--and many times, these bugs have slipped past
review. This is by far the most common logical error on Fishtest, and has
wasted uncountable STC games over the years.
However, it can be fixed by adding three non-functional lines of code. In this
patch, we define the operators when the operands are provided in the opposite
order, i.e., we make AND, OR, and XOR commutative for Bitboards and Squares.
Because these are inline methods and implemented identically, the executable
does not change at all.
This patch has the small side-effect of requiring Squares to be explicitly
cast to integers before AND, OR, or XOR with integers. This is only performed
twice in Stockfish's source code, and again does not change the executable at
all (since Square is an enum defined as an integer anyway).
For demonstration purposes, this pull request also inverts the order of one AND
and one OR, to show that neither the bench nor the executable change. (This
change can be removed before merging, if preferred.)
I hope that this pull request significantly lowers the barrier-of-entry for new
developer to join the Stockfish project. I also hope that this change will improve
our efficiency in using our generous CPU donors' machines, since it will remove
one of the most common causes of buggy tests.
Following helpful review and comments by Michael Stembera (@mstembera), we add
a further clean-up by implementing OR for two Squares, to anticipate additional
traps developers may encounter and handle them cleanly.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2387
No functional change.
Simplify the king ring initialization and make it more regular, by just
moving the king square off the edges and using PseudoAttacks by king from
this new square.
There is a small functional difference from the previous master, as the
old master excludes the original ksq square while this patch always includes
the nine squares block (after moving the king from the edges). Additionally,
master does not adjust the kingRing down if we are on relative rank 8,
while this patch treats all of the edges the same.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 13263 W: 2968 L: 2830 D: 7465
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5db872830ebc5902d1f388aa
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 72996 W: 11819 L: 11780 D: 49397
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5db899c20ebc5902d1f38b5e
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2384
Bench: 4959244
Make dynamic contempt weight factor dependent on static contempt so that higher
static contempt implies less dynamic contempt and vice versa. For default contempt
24 this is a non-functional change. But tests with contempt 0 shows an elo gain.
Also today is my birthday so i have already give to myself a gift with this patch :-)!
Further proceedings:
in the past we checked for default contempt that it doesn't regress against
contempt 0. Now that the later is stronger and the former is the same strength
this should be rechecked. Perhaps the default contempt have to be lowered.
It would be interesting to get some idea of the impact of this patch outside
of the 0-24 contempt range.
STC: (both with contempt=0)
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 21912 W: 3898 L: 3740 D: 14274
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5db74b6f0ebc5902d1f37405
LTC: (both with contempt=0)
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 27172 W: 3350 L: 3126 D: 20696
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5db760020ebc5902d1f375d0
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2382
No functional change (for current default contempt 24).
This PR refactors update_quiet_stats, update_capture_stats and search to more clearly reflect what is actually done.
Effectively, all stat updates that need to be done after search is finished and a bestmove is found,
are collected in a new function ```final_stats_update()```. This shortens our main search routine, and simplifies ```update_quiet_stats```.
The latter function is now more easily reusable with fewer arguments, as the handling of ```quietsSearched``` is only needed in ```final_stats_update```.
```update_capture_stats```, which was only called once is now integrated in ```final_stats_update```, which allows for removing a branch and reusing some ```stat_bonus``` calls. The need for refactoring was also suggested by the fact that the comments of ```update_quiet_stats``` and ```update_capture_stats``` were incorrect (e.g. ```update_capture_stats``` was called, correctly, also when the bestmove was a quiet and not a capture).
passed non-regression STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 75196 W: 16364 L: 16347 D: 42485
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5db004ec0ebc5902c06db9e1
The diff is most easily readable as ```git diff master --patience```
No functional change
- Cleanups by Alain
- Group king attacks and king defenses
- Signature of futility_move_count()
- Use is_discovery_check_on_king()
- Simplify backward definition
- Use static asserts in move generator
- Factor a statement in move generator
No functional change
