This patch introduces an Analysis Contempt UCI combo box to control
the behaviour of contempt during analysis. The possible values are
Both, Off, White, Black. Technically, the engine is supposed to be in
analysis mode if UCI_AnalyseMode is set by the graphical user interface
or if the user has chosen infinite analysis mode ("go infinite").
Credits: the idea for the combo box is due to Michel Van den Bergh.
No functional change (outside analysis mode).
-----------------------------------------------------
The so-called "contempt" is an optimism value that the engine adds
to one color to avoid simplifications and keep tension in the position
during its search. It was introduced in Stockfish 9 and seemed to give
good results during the TCEC 11 tournament (Stockfish seemed to play a
little bit more actively than in previous seasons).
The patch does not change the play during match or blitz play, but gives
more options for correspondance players to decide for which color(s) they
would like to use contempt in analysis mode (infinite time). Here is a
description of the various options:
* Both : in analysis mode, use the contempt for both players (alternating)
* Off : in analysis mode, use the contempt for none of the players
* White : in analysis mode, White will play actively, Black will play passively
* Black : in analysis mode, Black will play actively, White will play passively
We now use per-thread dynamic contempt. This patch has the following
effects:
* for Threads=1: **non-functional**
* for Threads>1:
* with MultiPV=1: **no regression, little to no ELO gain**
* with MultiPV>1: **clear improvement over master**
First, I tried testing at standard MultiPV=1 play with [0,5] bounds.
This yielded 2 yellow and 1 red test:
5+0.05, Threads=5:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 82689 W: 16439 L: 16190 D: 50060
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa93a5a0ebc5902952892e6
5+0.05, Threads=8:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 27164 W: 4974 L: 4983 D: 17207
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab2639b0ebc5902a6fbefd5
5+0.5, Threads=16:
LLR: -2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 41396 W: 7127 L: 7082 D: 27187
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab124220ebc59029516cb62
Then, I tested with Skill Level=17 (implicitly MutliPV=4), showing
a clear improvement:
5+0.05, Threads=5:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 3498 W: 1316 L: 1135 D: 1047
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab4b6580ebc5902932aeca2
Next, I tested the patch with MultiPV=1 again, this time checking for
non-regression ([-3, 1]):
5+0.5, Threads=5:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 65575 W: 12786 L: 12745 D: 40044
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab4e8500ebc5902932aecb3
Finally, I ran some tests with fixed number of games, checking if
reverting dynamic contempt gains more elo with Skill Level=17 (i.e.
MultiPV) than applying the "prevScore" fix and this patch. These tests
showed, that this patch gains 15 ELO when playing with Skill Level=17:
5+0.05, Threads=3, "revert dynamic contempt" vs. "WITHOUT this patch":
ELO: -11.43 +-4.1 (95%) LOS: 0.0%
Total: 20000 W: 7085 L: 7743 D: 5172
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab636450ebc590295d88536
5+0.05, Threads=3, "revert dynamic contempt" vs. "WITH this patch":
ELO: -26.42 +-4.1 (95%) LOS: 0.0%
Total: 20000 W: 6661 L: 8179 D: 5160
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab62e680ebc590295d88524
---
***FAQ***
**Why should this be commited?**
I believe that the gain for multi-thread MultiPV search is a sufficient
justification for this otherwise neutral change. I also believe this
implementation of dynamic contempt is more logical, although this may
be just my opinion.
**Why is per-thread contempt better at MultiPV?**
A likely explanation for the gain in MultiPV mode is that during
search each thread independently switches between rootMoves and via
the shared contempt score skews each other's evaluation.
**Why were the tests done with Skill Level=17?**
This was originally suggested by @Hanamuke and the idea is that with
Skill Level Stockfish sometimes plays also moves it thinks are slightly
sub-optimal and thus the quality of all moves offered by the MultiPV
search is checked by the test.
**Why are the ELO differences so huge?**
This is most likely because of the nature of Skill Level mode --
since it slower and weaker than normal mode, bugs in evaluation have
much greater effect.
---
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1515.
No functional change -- in single thread mode.
Adjust criterion for applying extra reduction if not improving.
We now add an extra ply of reduction if r > 1.0, instead of the
previous condition Reductions[NonPV][imp][d][mc] >= 2.
Why does this work? Previously, reductions when not improving had
a discontinuity as the depth and/or move count increases due to the
Reductions[NonPV][imp][d][mc] >= 2 condition. Hence, values of r
such that 0.5 < r < 1.5 would be mapped to a reduction of 1, while
1.5 < r < 2.5 would be mapped to a reduction of 3. This patch allows
values of r satisfying 1.0 < r < 1.5 to be mapped to a reduction of 2,
making the reduction formula more continuous.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 35908 W: 7382 L: 7087 D: 21439
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aba723a0ebc5902a4743e8f
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 23087 W: 3584 L: 3378 D: 16125
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aba89070ebc5902a4743ea9
Ideas for future work:
- We could look at retuning the LMR formula.
- We could look at adjusting the reductions in PV nodes if not improving.
Bench: 5326261
Use rootMoves[PVIdx].previousScore instead of bestValue for
dynamic contempt. This is equivalent for MultiPV=1 (bench remained the
same, even for higher depths), but more correct for MultiPV.
STC (MultiPV=3):
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 2657 W: 1079 L: 898 D: 680
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aaa47cb0ebc590297330403
LTC (MultiPV=3):
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 2390 W: 874 L: 706 D: 810
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aaa593a0ebc59029733040b
VLTC 240+2.4 (MultiPV=3):
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 2399 W: 861 L: 694 D: 844
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aaf983e0ebc5902a182131f
LTC (MultiPV=4, Skill Level=17):
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 747 W: 333 L: 175 D: 239
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aabccee0ebc5902997ff006
Note: although the ELO differences seem huge, they are inflated by the
nature of Skill Level / MultiPV search, so I don't think they can be
reasonably compared with classic ELO strength.
See https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1491 for some
verifications searches with MultiPV = 10 at depths 12 and 24 from the
starting position and the position after 1.e4, comparing the outputs
of the full PV by the old master and by this patch.
No functional change for MultiPV=1
This is a patch to fix issue #1498, switching the time management variables
to 64 bits to avoid overflow of time variables after 25 days.
There was a bug in Stockfish 9 causing the output to be wrong after
2^31 milliseconds search. Here is a long run from the starting position:
info depth 64 seldepth 87 multipv 1 score cp 23 nodes 13928920239402
nps 0 tbhits 0 time -504995523 pv g1f3 d7d5 d2d4 g8f6 c2c4 d5c4 e2e3 e7e6 f1c4
c7c5 e1g1 b8c6 d4c5 d8d1 f1d1 f8c5 c4e2 e8g8 a2a3 c5e7 b2b4 f8d8 b1d2 b7b6 c1b2
c8b7 a1c1 a8c8 c1c2 c6e5 d1c1 c8c2 c1c2 e5f3 d2f3 a7a5 b4b5 e7c5 f3d4 d8c8 d4b3
c5d6 c2c8 b7c8 b3d2 c8b7 d2c4 d6c5 e2f3 b7d5 f3d5 e6d5 c4e5 a5a4 e5d3 f6e4 d3c5
e4c5 b2d4 c5e4 d4b6 e4d6 g2g4 d6b5 b6c5 b5c7 g1g2 c7e6 c5d6 g7g6
We check at compile time that the TimePoint type is exactly 64 bits long for
the compiler (TimePoint is our alias in Stockfish for std::chrono::milliseconds
-- it is a signed integer type of at least 45 bits according to the C++ standard,
but will most probably be implemented as a 64 bits signed integer on modern
compilers), and we use this TimePoint type consistently across the code.
Bug report by user "fischerandom" on the TCEC chat (thanks), and the
patch includes code and suggestions by user "WOnder93" and Ronald de Man.
Fixes issue: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/1498
Closes pull request: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1510
No functional change.
To more clearly distinguish them from "const" local variables, this patch
defines compile-time local constants as constexpr. This is consistent with
the definition of PvNode as constexpr in search() and qsearch(). It also
makes the code more robust, since the compiler will now check that those
constants are indeed compile-time constants.
We can go even one step further and define all the evaluation and search
compile-time constants as constexpr.
In generate_castling() I replaced "K" with "step", since K was incorrectly
capitalised (in the Chess960 case).
In timeman.cpp I had to make the non-local constants MaxRatio and StealRatio
constepxr, since otherwise gcc would complain when calculating TMaxRatio and
TStealRatio. (Strangely, I did not have to make Is64Bit constexpr even though
it is used in ucioption.cpp in the calculation of constexpr MaxHashMB.)
I have renamed PieceCount to pieceCount in material.h, since the values of
the array are not compile-time constants.
Some compile-time constants in tbprobe.cpp were overlooked. Sides and MaxFile
are not compile-time constants, so were renamed to sides and maxFile.
Non-functional change.
Implements renaming suggestions by Marco Costalba, Günther Demetz,
Gontran Lemaire, Ronald de Man, Stéphane Nicolet, Alain Savard,
Joost VandeVondele, Jerry Donald Watson, Mike Whiteley, xoto10,
and I hope that I haven't forgotten anybody.
Perpetual renaming thread for suggestions:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/1426
No functional change.
If search depth is less than ONE_PLY call qsearch(), no need to check the
depth condition at various call sites of search().
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 14568 W: 3011 L: 2877 D: 8680
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa846190ebc59029781015b
Also helps gcc to find some optimizations (smaller binary, some speedup).
Thanks to Aram and Stefan for identifying an oversight in an early version.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1487
No functional change.
Adjust ProbCut rBeta by whether the score is improving, and also
set improving to false when in check. More precisely, this patch
has two parts:
1) the increased beta threshold for ProbCut is now adjusted based
on whether the score is improving
2) when in check, improving is always set to false.
Co-authored by Joost VandeVondele (@vondele) and Bill Henry (@VoyagerOne).
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 13480 W: 2840 L: 2648 D: 7992
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa693fe0ebc59029781004c
LTC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 25895 W: 4099 L: 3880 D: 17916
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa6ac940ebc59029781006e
In terms of opportunities for future work opened up by this patch,
the ProbCut rBeta formula could probably be tuned to gain more Elo.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1485
Bench: 5328254
Avoid duplicated code after recent commit "Use evaluation trend
to adjust futility margin". We initialize the improving variable
to true in the check case, which allows to avoid redundant code
in the general case.
Tested for speed by snicolet, patch seems about 0.4% faster.
No functional change.
Note: initializing the improving variable to false in the check
case was tested as a functional change, ending yellow in both STC
and LTC. This change is not included in the commit, but it is an
interesting result that could become part of a future patch about
improving or LMR. Reference of the LTC yellow test:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa131560ebc590297cb636e
Add a logarithmic term in the optimism computation, increase
the maximal optimism and lower the contempt offset.
This increases the dynamics of the optimism aspects, giving
a boost for balanced positions without skewing too much on
unbalanced positions (but this version will enter panic mode
faster than previous master when behind, trying to draw faster
when slightly behind). This helps, since optimism is in general
a good thing, for instance at LTC, but too high optimism
rapidly contaminates play.
passed STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 159343 W: 34489 L: 33588 D: 91266
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a8db9340ebc590297cc85b6
passed LTC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 47491 W: 7825 L: 7517 D: 32149
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9456a80ebc590297cc8a89
It must be mentioned that a version of the PR with contempt 0
did not pass STC [0,5]. The version in the patch, which uses
default contempt 12, was found to be as strong as current master
on different matches against SF7 and SF8, both at STC and LTC.
One drawback maybe is that it raises the draw rate in self-play
from 56% to 59%, giving a little bit less sensitivity for SF
developpers to find evaluation improvements by selfplay tests
in fishtest.
Possible further work:
• tune the values accurately, while keeping in mind the drawrate issue
• check whether it is possible to remove linear and offset term
• try to simplify the S-shape curve
Bench: 5934644
Use a recursive std::array with variadic template
parameters to get rid of the last redundacy.
The first template T parameter is the base type of
the array, the W parameter is the weight applied to
the bonuses when we update values with the << operator,
the D parameter limits the range of updates (range is
[-W * D, W * D]), and the last parameters (Size and
Sizes) encode the dimensions of the array.
This allows greater flexibility because we can now tweak
the range [-W * D, W * D] for each table.
Patch removes more lines than what adds and streamlines
the Stats soup in movepick.h
Closes PR#1422 and PR#1421
No functional change.
The first depth 2 margin triggers the verification quiescence search.
This qsearch() result has to be better then the second lower margin,
so we only skip the razoring when the qsearch gives a significant
improvement.
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 32133 W: 7395 L: 7101 D: 17637
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a93198b0ebc590297cc8942
Passed LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 17382 W: 3002 L: 2809 D: 11571
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a93b18c0ebc590297cc89c2
This Elo-gaining version was further simplified following a suggestion
of Marco Costalba:
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 15553 W: 3505 L: 3371 D: 8677
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a964be90ebc590297cc8cc4
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 13253 W: 2270 L: 2137 D: 8846
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9658880ebc590297cc8cca
How to continue after this patch?
Reformating the razoring code (step 7 in search()) to unify the
depth 1 and depth 2 treatements seems quite possible, this could
possibly lead to more simplifications.
Bench: 5765806
Using a SPSA tuning session to optimize the time management
parameters.
With SPSA tuning it is not always possible to say where improvements
came from. Maybe some variables changed randomly or because result
was not sensitive enough to them. So my explanation of changes will
not be necessarily correct, but here it is.
• When decrease of thinking time was added by Joost a few months ago
if best move has not changed for several plies, one more competing
indicator was introduced for the same purpose along with increase
in score and absence of fail low at root. It seems that tuning put
relatively more importance on that new indicator what allowed to save
time.
• Some of this saved time is distributed proportionally between all
moves and some more time were given to moves when score dropped a lot
or best move changed.
• It looks also that SPSA redistributed more time from the beginning to
later stages of game via other changes in variables - maybe because
contempt made game to last longer or for whatever reason.
All of this is just small tweaks here and there (a few percentages changes).
STC (10+0.1):
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 18970 W: 4268 L: 4029 D: 10673
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9291a40ebc590297cc8881
LTC (60+0.6):
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 72027 W: 12263 L: 11878 D: 47886
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a92d7510ebc590297cc88ef
Additional non-regression tests at other time controls
Sudden death 60s:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.00,0.00]
Total: 14444 W: 2715 L: 2608 D: 9121
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9445850ebc590297cc8a65
40 moves repeating at LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.00,0.00]
Total: 10309 W: 1880 L: 1759 D: 6670
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9566ec0ebc590297cc8be1
This is a functional patch only for time management, but the bench
does not reflect this because it uses fixed depth search, so the number
of nodes does not change during bench.
No functional change.
This is the sequel of the previous patch, we now let the parent node initialize
stat score to zero once for all grandchildren.
Initialize statScore to zero for the grandchildren of the current position.
So statScore is shared between all grandchildren and only the first grandchild
starts with statScore = 0. Later grandchildren start with the last calculated
statScore of the previous grandchild. This influences the reduction rules in
LMR which are based on the statScore of parent position.
Tests results against the previous patch:
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 23676 W: 5417 L: 5157 D: 13102
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9423a90ebc590297cc8a46
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 35485 W: 6168 L: 5898 D: 23419
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9435550ebc590297cc8a54
Bench: 5643520
Let the parent node initialize stat score to zero once for all siblings.
Initialize statScore to zero for the children of the current position.
So statScore is shared between sibling positions and only the first sibling
starts with statScore = 0. Later siblings start with the last calculated
statScore of the previous sibling. This influences the reduction rules in
in LMR which are based on the statScore of parent position.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 22683 W: 5202 L: 4946 D: 12535
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a93315f0ebc590297cc894f
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 48548 W: 8346 L: 8035 D: 32167
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a933ba90ebc590297cc8962
Bench: 5833683
To compute dicovered check or pinned pieces we use some bitwise
operators that are not really needed because already accounted for
at the caller site.
For instance in evaluation we compute:
pos.pinned_pieces(Us) & s
Where pinned_pieces() is:
st->blockersForKing[c] & pieces(c)
So in this case the & operator with pieces(c) is useless,
given the outer '& s'.
There are many places where we can use the naked blockersForKing[]
instead of the full pinned_pieces() or discovered_check_candidates().
This path is simpler than original and gives around 1% speed up for me.
Also tested for speed by mstembera and snicolet (neutral in both cases).
No functional change.
When iid (Internal iterative deepening) is invoked, the prior value of ttValue is
not guaranteed to be VALUE_NONE. As such, it is currently possible to enter a state
in which ttValue has a specific value which is inconsistent with tte->bound() and
tte->depth(). Currently, ttValue is only used within the search in a context that
prevents this situation from making a difference (and so this change is non-functional,
but this is not guaranteed to remain the case in the future.
For instance, just changing the tt depth condition in singular extension node to be
tte->depth() >= depth - 4 * ONE_PLY
instead of
tte->depth() >= depth - 3 * ONE_PLY
interacts badly with the absence of ttMove in iid. For the ttMove to become a singular
extension candidate, singularExtensionNode needs to be true. With the current master,
this requires that tte->depth() >= depth - 3 * ONE_PLY. This is not currently possible
if tte comes from IID, since the depth 'd' used for the IID search is always less than
depth - 4 * ONE_PLY for depth >= 8 * ONE_PLY (below depth 8 singularExtensionNode can
never be true anyway). However, with DU-jdto/Stockfish@251281a , this condition can be
met, and it is possible for singularExtensionNode to become true after IID. There are
then two mechanisms by which this patch can affect the search:
• If ttValue was VALUE_NONE prior to IID, the fact that this patch sets ttValue allows
the 'ttValue != VALUE_NONE' condition of singularExtensionNode to be met.
• If ttValue wasn't VALUE_NONE prior to IID, the fact that this patch modifies ttValue's
value causes a different 'rBeta' to be calculated if the singular extension search is
performed.
Tested at STC for non-regression:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 76981 W: 17060 L: 17048 D: 42873
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7738b70ebc5902971a9868
No functional change
The razoring heuristic is quite a drastic pruning technique,
using a depth 0 search at internal nodes of the search tree
to estimate the true value of depth n nodes. This patch limits
this razoring to the case of internal nodes of depth 1.
Author: Jarrod Torriero (DU-jdto)
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 8043 W: 1865 L: 1716 D: 4462
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a90a9290ebc590297cc86c1
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 32890 W: 5577 L: 5476 D: 21837
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a90c8510ebc590297cc86d5
Opportunities opened by this patch: it would be interesting to
know if it brings Elo to re-introduce razoring or soft razoring
at depth >= 2, maybe using a larger margin to compensate for the
increased pruning effect.
Bench: 5227124
Make contempt dependent on the current score of the root position.
The idea is that we now use a linear formula like the following to decide
on the contempt to use during a search :
contempt = x + y * eval
where x is the base contempt set by the user in the "Contempt" UCI option,
and y * eval is the dynamic part which adapts itself to the estimation of
the evaluation of the root position returned by the search. In this patch,
we use x = 18 centipawns by default, and the y * eval correction can go
from -20 centipawns if the root eval is less than -2.0 pawns, up to +20
centipawns when the root eval is more than 2.0 pawns.
To summarize, the new contempt goes from -0.02 to 0.38 pawns, depending if
Stockfish is losing or winning, with an average value of 0.18 pawns by default.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 110052 W: 24614 L: 23938 D: 61500
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a72e6020ebc590f2c86ea20
LTC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 16470 W: 2896 L: 2705 D: 10869
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a76c5b90ebc5902971a9830
A second match at LTC was organised against the current master:
ELO: 1.45 +-2.9 (95%) LOS: 84.0%
Total: 19369 W: 3350 L: 3269 D: 12750
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7acf980ebc5902971a9a2e
Finally, we checked that there is no apparent problem with multithreading,
despite the fact that some threads might have a slightly different contempt
level that the main thread.
Match of this version against master, both using 5 threads, time control 30+0.3:
ELO: 2.18 +-3.2 (95%) LOS: 90.8%
Total: 14840 W: 2502 L: 2409 D: 9929
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7bf3e80ebc5902971a9aa2
Include suggestions from Marco Costalba, Aram Tumanian, Ronald de Man, etc.
Bench: 5207156
This patch simplifies the time management code, removing the extra
thinking time for moves with draw PV and increasing thinking time
for all moves proportionally by around 4%.
Last time when the time management was carefully tuned was 1.5-2 years
ago. As new patches were getting added, time management was drifting out
of optimum. This happens because when search becomes more precise pv and
score are becoming more stable, there are less fail lows, best move is
picked earlier and there are less best move changes. All this factors are
entering in time management, and average time per move is decreasing with
more and more good patches. For individual patches such effect is small
(except some) and may be up or down, but when there are many of them,
effect is more substantial. The same way benchmark with more and more
patches is slowly drifting down on average.
So my understanding that back in October adding more think time for draw
PV showed positive Elo because time management was not well tuned, there
was more time available, and think_hard patch applied this additional time
to moves with draw PV, while just retuning back to optimum would recover Elo
anyway. It is possible that absence of contempt also helped, as SF9 is showing
less 0.0 scores than the October version.
Anyway, to me it seems that proper place to deal with draw PV is search, and
contempt sounds as much better solution. In time management there is little
additional elo, and if some code is not helping like removed here, it is better
to discard it. It is simpler to find genuine improvement if code is clean.
• Passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 20487 W: 4558 L: 4434 D: 11495
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7706ec0ebc5902971a9854
• Passed LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 41960 W: 7145 L: 7058 D: 27757
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a778c830ebc5902971a9895
• Passed an additional non-regression [-5..0] test at the time control
of 60sec for the game (sudden death) with disabled draw adjudication:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-5.00,0.00]
Total: 8438 W: 1675 L: 1586 D: 5177
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7c3d8d0ebc5902971a9ac0
• Passed an additional non-regression [-5..0] test at the time control
of 1sec+1sec per move with disabled draw adjudication:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [-5.00,0.00]
Total: 27664 W: 5575 L: 5574 D: 16515
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7c3e820ebc5902971a9ac3
This is a functional change for the time management code.
Bench: 4983414
It seems to be a waste of time to loop through all remaining root moves
after finishing each PV line. This patch skips this until we have reached
the last PV line (this is the way it was done in Glaurung and very early
versions of Stockfish).
No functional change in Single PV mode.
MultiPV=3 STC and LTC tests
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 3113 W: 1248 L: 1064 D: 801
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 2260 W: 848 L: 679 D: 733
Bench: 5023629
It does the following:
- If a TB win or loss value allows an alpha or beta cutoff, the cutoff is taken.
- Otherwise, the search of the current subtree continues. In PV nodes, the final value returned is adjusted to reflect that the position is a TB win (or loss).
The patch also fixes a potential problem caused by root_probe() and root_probe_wdl() dirtying the root-move scores.
This patch removes the limitation of current master that a mate is never found if the root position is not yet in the TBs, but the path to mate at some point enters the TBs. The patch is intended to preserve the efficiency and effectiveness of the current TB probing approach.
No functional change (withouth TB)
1. avoid recursive call of verification.
For the interested side to move recursion makes no sense.
For the other side it could make sense in case of mutual zugzwang,
but I was not able to figure out any concrete problematic position.
Allows the removal of 2 local variables.
2. avoid further reduction by removing R += ONE_PLY;
Benchmark with zugzwang-suite (see #1338), max 45 secs per position:
Patch solves 33 out of 37
Master solves 31 out of 37
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 76188 W: 13866 L: 13840 D: 48482
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a5612ed0ebc590297da516c
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40479 W: 5247 L: 5152 D: 30080
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a56f7d30ebc590299e4550e
bench: 5340015
The heuristic to avoid thread binding if less than 8 threads are requested resulted in the first 7 threads not being bound.
The branch was verified to yield a roughly 13% speedup by @CoffeeOne on the appropriate hardware and OS, and an earlier version of this patch tested well on his machine:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a3693480ebc590ccbb8be5a
ELO: 9.24 +-4.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 5000 W: 634 L: 501 D: 3865
To make sure all threads (including mainThread) are bound as soon as the total number exceeds 7, recreate all threads on a change of thread number.
To do this, unify Threads::init, Threads::exit and Threads::set are unified in a single Threads::set function that goes through the needed steps.
The code includes several suggestions from @joergoster.
Fixes issue #1312
No functional change
For efficiency reasons current master only allows for transposition table sizes that are N = 2^k in size, the index computation can be done efficiently as (hash % N) can be written instead as (hash & 2^k - 1). On a typical computer (with 4, 8... etc Gb of RAM), this implies roughly half the RAM is left unused in analysis.
This issue was mentioned on fishcooking by Mindbreaker:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a3587de0ebc590ccbb8be04
Recently a neat trick was proposed to map a hash into the range [0,N[ more efficiently than (hash % N) for general N, nearly as efficiently as (hash % 2^k):
https://lemire.me/blog/2016/06/27/a-fast-alternative-to-the-modulo-reduction/
namely computing (hash * N / 2^32) for 32 bit hashes. This patch implements this trick and now allows for general hash sizes. Note that for N = 2^k this just amounts to using a different subset of bits from the hash. Master will use the lower k bits, this trick will use the upper k bits (of the 32 bit hash).
There is no slowdown as measured with [-3, 1] test:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a3587de0ebc590ccbb8be04
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 128498 W: 23332 L: 23395 D: 81771
There are two (smaller) caveats:
1) the patch is implemented for a 32 bit hash (so that a 64 bit multiply can be used), this effectively limits the number of clusters that can be used to 2^32 or to 128Gb of transpostion table. That's a change in the maximum allowed TT size, which could bother those using 256Gb or more regularly.
2) Already in master, an excluded move is hashed into the position key in rather simple way, essentially only affecting the lower 16 bits of the key. This is OK in master, since bits 0-15 end up in the index, but not in the new scheme, which picks the higher bits. This is 'fixed' by shifting the excluded move a few bits up. Eventually a better hashing scheme seems wise.
Despite these two caveats, I think this is a nice improvement in usability.
Bench: 5346341
