define Color us and use this instead of pos.side_to_move() and nmp_odd. The latter allows to clarify the nmp verification criterion.
Tested for no regression:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 76713 W: 15303 L: 15284 D: 46126
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b046a0d0ebc5914abc12971
No functional change.
Simplifying away all the progressKey stuff gives exactly the same bench,
without any speed impact. Tested for speed against master with two benches
at depth 22 ran in parallel:
**testedpatch**
Total time (ms) : 92350
Nodes searched : 178962949
Nodes/second : 1937877
**master**
Total time (ms) : 92358
Nodes searched : 178962949
Nodes/second : 1937709
We also tested the patch at STC for no-regression with [-3, 1] bounds:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 57299 W: 11529 L: 11474 D: 34296
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b015a1c0ebc5914abc126e5
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1603
No functional change.
Default template parameters values and recursive functions do not play well
together. Fix for below errors that showed up after updating to latest MSVC.
````
tbprobe.cpp(1156): error C2672:
'search': no matching overloaded function found
tbprobe.cpp(1198): error C2783:
'Tablebases::WDLScore `anonymous-namespace'::search(Position &,Tablebases::ProbeState *)':
could not deduce template argument for 'CheckZeroingMoves'
````
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1594
No functional change.
A position which has a move which draws by repetition, or which could have
been reached from an earlier position in the game tree, is considered to be
at least a draw for the side to move.
Cycle detection algorithm by Marcel van Kervink:
https://marcelk.net/2013-04-06/paper/upcoming-rep-v2.pdf
----------------------------
How does the algorithm work in practice? The algorithm is an efficient
method to detect if the side to move has a drawing move, without doing any
move generation, thus possibly giving a cheap cutoffThe most interesting
conditions are both on line 1195:
```
if ( originalKey == (progressKey ^ stp->key)
|| progressKey == Zobrist::side)
```
This uses the position keys as a sort-of Bloom filter, to avoid the expensive
checks which follow. For "upcoming repetition" consider the opening Nf3 Nf6 Ng1.
The XOR of this position's key with the starting position gives their difference,
which can be used to look up black's repeating move (Ng8). But that look-up is
expensive, so line 1195 checks that the white pieces are on their original squares.
This is the subtlest part of the algorithm, but the basic idea in the above game
is there are 4 positions (starting position and the one after each move). An XOR
of the first pair (startpos and after Nf3) gives a key matching Nf3. An XOR of
the second pair (after Nf6 and after Ng1) gives a key matching the move Ng1. But
since the difference in each pair is the location of the white knight those keys
are "identical" (not quite because while there are 4 keys the the side to move
changed 3 times, so the keys differ by Zobrist::side). The loop containing line
1195 does this pair-wise XOR-ing.
Continuing the example, after line 1195 determines that the white pieces are
back where they started we still need to make sure the changes in the black
pieces represents a legal move. This is done by looking up the "moveKey" to
see if it corresponds to possible move, and that there are no pieces blocking
its way. There is the additional complication that, to match the behavior of
is_draw(), if the repetition is not inside the search tree then there must be
an additional repetition in the game history. Since a position can have more
than one upcoming repetition a simple count does not suffice. So there is a
search loop ending on line 1215.
On the other hand, the "no-progress' is the same thing but offset by 1 ply.
I like the concept but think it currently has minimal or negative benefit,
and I'd be happy to remove it if that would get the patch accepted. This
will not, however, save many lines of code.
-----------------------------
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 36430 W: 7446 L: 7150 D: 21834
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5afc123f0ebc591fdf408dfc
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 12998 W: 2045 L: 1876 D: 9077
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5afc2c630ebc591fdf408e0c
How could we continue after the patch:
• The code in search() that checks for cycles has numerous possible variants.
Perhaps the check need could be done in qsearch() too.
• The biggest improvement would be to get "no progress" to be of actual benefit,
and it would be helpful understand why it (probably) isn't. Perhaps there is an
interaction with the transposition table or the (fantastically complex) tree
search. Perhaps this would be hard to fix, but there may be a simple oversight.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1575
Bench: 4550412
At PvNodes allow bonus for prior counter move that caused a fail low
for depth 1 and 2. Note : I did a speculative LTC on yellow STC patch
since history stats tend to be highly TC sensitive
STC (Yellow):
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 64295 W: 13042 L: 12873 D: 38380
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af507c80ebc5968e6524153
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 22407 W: 3413 L: 3211 D: 15783
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af85dd40ebc591fdf408b87
Also use local variable excludedMove in NMP (marotear)
Bench: 5294316
Use the whole kingRing for pawn attackers instead of only the squares directly
around the king. This tends to give quite a lot more kingAttackersCount, so to
compensate and to avoid raising the king danger too fast we lower the values
in the KingAttackWeights array a little bit.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 51892 W: 10723 L: 10369 D: 30800
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af6d4dd0ebc5968e652428e
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 24536 W: 3737 L: 3515 D: 17284
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af709890ebc5968e65242ac
Credits to user @xoroshiro for the idea of using the kingRing for pawn attackers.
How to continue? It seems that the KingAttackWeights[] array stores values
which are quite Elo-sensitive, yet they have not been tuned with SPSA recently.
There might be easy Elo points to get there.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1597
Bench: 5282815
Simplification: in king danger, include all blockers and not only pinned
pieces, since blockers enemy pieces can result in discovered checks which
are also bad.
STC http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af35f9f0ebc5968e6523fe9
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 145781 W: 29368 L: 29478 D: 86935
LTC http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af3cb430ebc5968e652401f
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 76398 W: 11272 L: 11232 D: 53894
I also incorrectly scheduled STC with [0,5] which it failed.
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af283c00ebc5968e6523f33
LLR: -2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 12338 W: 2451 L: 2522 D: 7365
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1593
bench: 4698290
----------------------------------------
Thanks to @vondele and @Rocky640 for a cleaner version of the patch,
and the following comments!
> Most of the pinned, (or for this pull request, blocking) squares were
> already computed in the unsafeChecks, the only missing squares being:
>
> a) squares attacked by a Queen which are occupied by friendly piece
> or "unsafe". Note that adding such squares never passed SPRT[0,5].
>
> b) squares not in mobilityArea[Us].
>
> There is a strong relationship between the blockers and the unsafeChecks,
> but the bitboard unsafeChecks is still useful when the checker is not
> aligned with the king, and the checking square is occupied by friendly
> piece or is "unsafe". This is always the case for the Knight.
This patch simplifies the control flow in search(), removing an if
and a goto. A side effect of the patch is that Stockfish is now a
little bit more selective at low depths, because we allow razoring,
futility pruning and probcut pruning after a null move.
passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 32035 W: 6523 L: 6422 D: 19090
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af142ca0ebc597fb3d39bb6
passed LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 41431 W: 6187 L: 6097 D: 29147
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af148770ebc597fb3d39bc1
Ideas for further work:
• Use the nodes credit opened by the patch (the increased selectivity)
to try somewhat higher razoring, futility or probcut margins at [0..4].
Bench: 4855031
We can view the patch version as adding some "undermining bonus" for
level pawns, when the defending side can not easily avoid the exchange
by advancing her pawn.
• Case 1) White b2,c3, Black a3,b3:
Black is breaking through, b2 deserves a penalty
• Case 2) White b2,c3, Black a3,c4:
if b2xa3 then White ends up with a weak pawn on a3
and probably a weak pawn on c3 too.
In either case, White can still not safely play b2-b3 and make a
phalanx with c3, which is the essence of a backward pawn definition.
Passed STC in SPRT[0, 4]:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 131169 W: 26523 L: 26199 D: 78447
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aefa4d50ebc5902a409a151
ELO 1.19 [-0.38,2.88] (95%)
Passed LTC in SPRT[-3, 1]:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 24824 W: 3732 L: 3617 D: 17475
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af04d3f0ebc5902a88b2e55
ELO 1.27 [-1.21,3.70] (95%)
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1584
How to continue from there?
There were some promising tests a couple of months ago about adding
a lever condition for king danger in evaluate.cpp, maybe it would
be time to re-try this after all the recent changes in pawns.cpp
Bench: 4773882
The two lines of code in the patch seem to be just as good as master.
1. We now only look at the current square to see if it is currently backward,
whereas master looks there AND further ahead in the current file (master would
declare a pawn "backward" even though it could still safely advance a little).
This simplification allows us to avoid the use of the difficult logic with
`backmost_sq(Us, neighbours | stoppers)`.
2. The condition `relative_rank(Us,s) < RANK_5` is simplified away.
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 68132 W: 14025 L: 13992 D: 40115
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aedc97a0ebc5902a4099fd6
Passed LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 23789 W: 3643 L: 3527 D: 16619
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aee4f970ebc5902a409a03a
Ideas for further work:
• The new code flags some pawns on the 5th rank as backward, which was not the
case in the old master. So maybe we should test a version with that included?
• Further tweaks of the backward condition with [0..5] bounds?
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1583
Bench: 5122789
When we are using the "Bitboard + Square" overloaded operators,
the compiler uses the interpediate SquareBB[s] to transform the
square into a Bitboard, and then calculate the result.
For instance, the following code:
```
b = pos.pieces(Us, PAWN) & s
```
generates in fact the code:
```
b = pos.pieces(Us, PAWN) & SquareBB[s]`
```
The bug introduced by Stéphane in the previous patch was the
use of `b = pos.pieces(Us, PAWN) & (s + Up)` which can result
in out-of-bounds errors for the SquareBB[] array if s in the
last rank of the board.
We coorect the bug, and also add some asserts in bitboard.h to
make the code more robust for this particular bug in the future.
Bug report by Joost VandeVondele. Thanks!
Bench: 5512000
Simplification: remove BlockedByKing from storm array and use a special rule.
The BlockedByKing section in the storm array is substantially similar to the
Unopposed section except for two extreme values V(-290), V(-274). Turns out
removing BlockedByKing and using a special rule for these two values shows
no Elo loss. All the other values in the BlockedByKing section are apparently
irrelevant. BlockedByKing now falls under unopposed which (to me) is a bit
more logical since there is no defending pawn on this file. Also, retuning
the Unopposed section may be another improvement.
GOOD) This is a simplification because the entire BlockedByKing section of
the storm array goes away reducing a few lines of code (and less values to
tune). This also brings clarity because the special rule is self documenting.
BAD) It takes execution time to apply the special rule. This should be negli-
gible because it is based on a template parameter and is boiled down to two
bitwise AND's.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 33470 W: 6820 L: 6721 D: 19929
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ae7b6e60ebc5926dba90e13
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 47627 W: 7045 L: 6963 D: 33619
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ae859ff0ebc5926dba90e85
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1574
Bench: 5512000
-----------
How to continue after this patch?
This patch may open the possibility to move the special rule to evaluate.cpp
in the evaluate::king() function, where we could refine the rule using king
danger information. For instance, with a king in H2 blocking an opponent pawn
in H3, it may be critical to know that the opponent has no safe check in G2
before giving the bonus :-)
This is a further step in the long quest for a simple way of determining
scale factors for the endgame.
Here we remove the artificial restriction in evaluate_scale_factor()
based on endgame score. Also SCALE_FACTOR_ONEPAWN can be simplified
away. The latter is a small non functional simplification with respect
to the version that was testedin the framework, verified on bench with
depth 22 for good measure.
Passed STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 49438 W: 9999 L: 9930 D: 29509
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ae20c8b0ebc5963175205c8
Passed LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 101445 W: 15113 L: 15110 D: 71222
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ae2a0560ebc5902a1998986
How to continue from there?
Maybe the general case could be scaled with pawns from both colors
without losing Elo. If that is the case, then this could be merged
somehow with the scaling in evaluate_initiative(), which also uses
a additive malus down when the number of pawns in the position goes
down.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1570
Bench: 5254862
Currently the make strip target is broken on mingw as the exe name is wrong (stockfish instead of stockfish.exe).
Needs some testing by mingw users (both profile-build and strip, native and cross).
No functional change.
Queen was recently excluded from the mobility area of friendly minor
pieces. Exclude queen also from the mobility area of friendly majors too.
Run as a simplification:
STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ade396f0ebc59602d053742
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 46972 W: 9511 L: 9437 D: 28024
LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ade64b50ebc5949f20a24d3
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 66855 W: 10157 L: 10105 D: 46593
How to continue from there?
The mobilityArea is used in various places of the evaluation as a
soft proxy for "not attacked by the opponent pawns". Now that the
mobility area is getting smaller and smaller, it may be worth to
hunt for Elo gains by trying the more direct ~attackedBy[Them][PAWN]
instead of mobilityArea[Us] in these places.
Bench: 4650572
Remove the distinction between the king file and the two neighbours
files in the ShelterStrength[] array. Instead we initialize the safety
variable in the evaluate_shelter() function with a -10 penalty if our
king is on a semi-open file (ie. if our king is on a file without a pawn
protection).
Also rename shelter_storm() to evaluate_shelter() while there.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 23153 W: 4795 L: 4677 D: 13681
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5adcb83d0ebc595ec7ff8aa7
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 25728 W: 3934 L: 3821 D: 17973
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5adcdcb60ebc595ec7ff8adb
See the commit history in PR#1559 for the proof that the committed
version is equivalent to the version in the tests above:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1559
Full credit to @protonspring for the renormalized values of the
ShelterStrength[] array used for the simplification. Thanks!
Bench: 4703935
Change the operators of the Option type in uci.h to accept floating
point numbers in double precision on input as the numerical type for
the "spin" values of the UCI protocol.
The output of Stockfish after the "uci" command is unaffected.
This change is compatible with all the existing GUI (as they will
continue sending integers that we can interpret as doubles in SF),
and allows us to pass double parameters to Stockfish in the console
via the "setoption" command. This will be useful if we implement
another tuner as an alternative for SPSA.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1556
No functional change.
---------------------
A example of the new functionality in action in the branch `tune_float2'`:
876c322d0f
I have added the following lines in ucioptions.cpp:
```C++
void on_pi(const Option& o)
{
double x = Options["PI"]; // or double x = o;
std::cerr << "received value is x = " << x << std::endl;
}
...
o["PI"] << Option(3.1415926, -10000000, 10000000, on_pi);
```
Then I can change the value of Pi in Stockfish via the command line, and
check that Stockfish understands a floating point:
````
> ./stockfish
> setoption name PI value 2.7182818284
received value is x = 2.71828
````
On output, the default value of Pi is truncated to 3 (to remain compatible
with the UCI protocol and GUIs):
````
> uci
[...]
option name SyzygyProbeLimit type spin default 6 min 0 max 6
option name PI type spin default 3 min -10000000 max 10000000
uciok
````
This patch is non-functional. Current master does four operations to determine
whether an enemy pawn on this file is blocked by the king or not
```
f == file_of(ksq) && rkThem == relative_rank(Us, ksq) + 1 )
```
By adding a direction (based on the template color), this is reduced to two
operations. This works because b is limited to enemy pawns that are ahead of
the king and on the current file.
```
shift<Down>(b) & ksq
```
I've added a line of code, but the number of executing instructions is reduced
(I think). I'm not sure if this counts as a simplification, but it should
theoretically be a little faster (barely). The code line length is also reduced
making it a little easier to read.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1552
No functional change.
This patch corrects both MultiPV behaviour and "go searchmoves" behaviour
for tablebases.
We change the logic of table base probing at root positions from filtering
to ranking. The ranking code is much more straightforward than the current
filtering code (this is a simplification), and also more versatile.
If the root is a TB position, each root move is probed and assigned a TB score
and a TB rank. The TB score is the Value to be displayed to the user for that
move (unless the search finds a mate score), while the TB rank determines which
moves should appear higher in a multi-pv search. In game play, the engine will
always pick a move with the highest rank.
Ranks run from -1000 to +1000:
901 to 1000 : TB win
900 : normally a TB win, in rare cases this could be a draw
1 to 899 : cursed TB wins
0 : draw
-1 to -899 : blessed TB losses
-900 : normally a TB loss, in rare cases this could be a draw
-901 to -1000 : TB loss
Normally all winning moves get rank 1000 (to let the search pick the best
among them). The exception is if there has been a first repetition. In that
case, moves are ranked strictly by DTZ so that the engine will play a move
that lowers DTZ (and therefore cannot repeat the position a second time).
Losing moves get rank -1000 unless they have relatively high DTZ, meaning
they have some drawing chances. Those get ranks towards -901 (when they
cross -900 the draw is certain).
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1467
No functional change (without tablebases).
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
This patch adds some documentation and code cleanup to tablebase code.
It took me some time to understand the relation among the differrent
structs, although I have rewrote them fully in the past. So I wrote
some detailed documentation to avoid the same efforts for future readers.
Also noteworthy is the use a standard hash table implementation with a
more efficient 1D array instead of a 2D array. This reduces the average
lookup steps of 90% (from 343 to 38 in a bench 128 1 16 run) and reduces
also the table from 5K to 4K
entries.
I have tested on 5-men and no functional and no slowdown reported. It
should be verified on 6-men that the new hash does not overflow. It is
enough to run ./stockfish with 6-men available: if it does not assert at
startup it means everything is ok with 6-men too.
EDIT: verified for 6-men tablebase by Jörg Oster. Thanks!
No functional change.
We remove an unnecessary condition in the definition of safe squares
in the space evaluation. Only the squares which are occupied by our
pawns or attacked by our opponent's pawns are now excluded.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 21096 W: 4321 L: 4199 D: 12576
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5acbf7510ebc59547e537d4e
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 23437 W: 3577 L: 3460 D: 16400
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5acc0f750ebc59547e537d6a
It may be possible to further refine the definition of such safe squares.
Bench: 5351765
This patch applies a S(10, 5) bonus for every square that is:
- Occupied by an enemy piece which is not a pawn
- Attacked exactly once by our pieces
- Defended exactly once by enemy pieces
The idea is that these pieces must be defended. Their defenders have
dramatically limited mobility, and they are vulnerable to our future
attack.
As with connectivity, there are probably many more tests to be run in
this area. In particular:
- I believe @snicolet's queen overload tests have demonstrated a potential
need for a queen overload bonus above and beyond this one; however, the
conditions for "overload" in this patch are different (excluding pieces
we attack twice). My next test after this is (hopefully) merged will be
to intersect the Bitboard I define here with the enemy's queen attacks and
attempt to give additional bonus.
- Perhaps we should exclude pieces attacked by pawns--can pawns really be
overloaded? Should they have the same weight, or less? This didn't work
with a previous version, but it could work with this one.
- More generally, different pieces may need more or less bonus. We could
change bonuses based on what type of enemy piece is being overloaded, what
type of friendly piece is attacking, and/or what type of piece is being
defended by the overloaded piece and attacked by us, or any intersection
of these three. For example, here attacked/defended pawns are excluded,
but they're not totally worthless targets, and could be added again with
a smaller bonus.
- This list is by no means exhaustive.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 17439 W: 3599 L: 3390 D: 10450
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac78a2e0ebc59435923735e
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 43304 W: 6533 L: 6256 D: 30515
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac7a1d80ebc59435923736f
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1533
Bench: 5248871
----------------
This is my first time opening a PR, so I apologize if there are errors.
There are too many people to thank since I submitted my first test just
over a month ago. Thank you all for the warm welcome and here is to more
green patches!
In particular, I would like to thank:
- @crossbr, whose comment in a FishCooking thread first inspired me to
consider the overloading of pieces other than queens,
- @snicolet, whose queen overload tests inspired this one and served as
the base of my first overload attempts,
- @protonspring, whose connectivity tests inspired this one and who provided
much of the feedback needed to take this from red to green,
- @vondele, who kindly corrected me when I submitted a bad LTC test,
- @Rocky640, who has helped me over and over again in the past month.
Thank you all!
In master, we already remove the King from the mobility area of minor pieces
because the King simply stands in the way of other pieces, and since opponent
cannot capture the King, any piece which "protects" the King cannot recapture.
Similarly, this patch introduces the idea that it is rarely a need for a Queen
to be "protected" by a minor (unless it is attacked only by a Queen, in fact).
We used to have a LoosePiece bonus, and in a similar vein the Queen was excluded
from that penalty.
Idea came when reviewing an old game of Kholmov. He was a very good midgame
player, but in the opening his misplace his Queen (and won in the end :-) :
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1134645
Both white queen moves 10.Qd3 and 13.Qb3 are in the way of some minor piece.
I would prefer to not give a bishop mobility bonus at move 10 for the square d3,
or later a knight mobility bonus at move 13 for the square b3. And the textbook
move is 19.Qe3! which prepares 20.Nb3. This short game sample shows how much a
queen can be "in the way" of minor pieces.
STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac2c15f0ebc591746423fa3
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 22066 W: 4561 L: 4330 D: 13175
LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac2d6500ebc591746423faf
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 25871 W: 3953 L: 3738 D: 18180
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1532
Ideas for future work in this area:
• tweak some more mobility areas for other piece type.
• construct a notion of global mobility for the whole piece set.
• bad bishops.
Bench: 4989125
Simplify ThreatBySafePawn evaluation by removing the 'if (weak)' speed
optimization check from threats evaluation. This is a non functional
change as it removes just a speed optimization conditional which was
probably useful before but does no longer provide benefits. This section
section had a few more lines not long ago, with ThreatByHangingPawn and
a loop through the threatened pieces, but now there is not much left.
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 47775 W: 9696 L: 9624 D: 28455
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac298910ebc591746423f8b
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1531
Non functional change.
1) Use make_bitboard() in Bitboards::init()
2) Fix MSVC warning: search.h(85): warning C4244: '=': conversion from
'TimePoint' to 'int', possible loss of data.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1524
No functional change.
When we reach a position with only two opposite colored bishops and
one pawn on the board, current master would give it a scale factor
of 9/64=0.14 in about one position out of 7200, and a scale factor
of 0.0 in the 7199 others. The patch gives a scale factor of 0.0 in
100% of the cases.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 55845 W: 11467 L: 11410 D: 32968
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5abc585f0ebc5902926cf15e
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 11915 W: 1852 L: 1719 D: 8344
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5abc7f750ebc5902926cf18c
We also have exhaustive coverage analysis of this patch effect by
Alain Savard, comparing the perfect evaluation given by the Syzygy
tablebase with the heuristic play after this patch for the set of
all legal positions of the KBPKP endgame with opposite bishops, in
the comments thread for this pull request:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1520
Alain's conclusion:
> According to this definition and the data, I consider this PR is
> identical to master to "solve for draw" and slightly better than
> master to solve earlier for "wins".
Note: this patch is a side effect of an ongoing effort to improve
the evaluation of positions involving a pair of opposite bishops.
See the GitHub diff of this LTC test which almost passed at sprt[0..5]
for a discussion:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab9030b0ebc5902932cbf93
No functional change (at small bench depths)
Include some not fully supported levers in the (candidate) passed pawns
bitboard, if otherwise unblocked. Maybe levers are usually very short
lived, and some inaccuracy in the lever balance for the definition of
candidate passed pawns just triggers a deeper search.
Here is a example of a case where the patch has an effect on the definition
of candidate passers: White c5/e5 pawns, against Black d6 pawn. Let's say
we want to test if e5 is a candidate passer. The previous master looks
only at files d, e and f (which is already very good) and reject e5 as
a candidate. However, the lever d6 is challenged by 2 pawns, so it should
not fully count. Indirectly, this patch will view such case (and a few more)
to be scored as candidates.
STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5abcd55d0ebc5902926cf1e1
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 16492 W: 3419 L: 3198 D: 9875
LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5abce1360ebc5902926cf1e6
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 21156 W: 3201 L: 2990 D: 14965
This was inspired by this test of Jerry Donald Watson, except the case of
zero supporting pawns against two levers is excluded, and it seems that
not excluding that case is bad, while excluding is it beneficial. See the
following tests on fishtest:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1519http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5abccd850ebc5902926cf1ddhttp://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5abcdd490ebc5902926cf1e4
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1521
Bench: 5568461
----
Comments by Jerry Donald Watson:
> My thinking as to why this works:
>
> The evaluation is either called in an interior node or in the qsearch.
> The calls at the end of the qsearch are the more important as they
> ultimately determine the scoring of each move, whereas the internal
> values are mainly used for pruning decisions with a margin. Some strong
> engines don't even call the eval at all nodes. Now the whole point of
> the qsearch is to find quiet positions where captures do not change the
> evaluation of the position with regards to the search bounds - i.e. if
> there were good captures they would be tried.* So when a candidate lever
> appears in the evaluation at the end of the qsearch, the qsearch has
> guaranteed that it cannot just be captured, or if it can, this does not
> take the score past the search bounds. Practically this may mean that
> the side with the candidate lever has the turn, or perhaps the stopping
> lever pawn is pinned, or that side is forced for other reasons to make
> some other move (e.g. d6 can only take one of the pawns in the example
> above).
>
> Hence granting the full score for only one lever defender makes some
> sense, at least, to me.
>
> IMO this is also why huge bonuses for possible captures in the evaluation
> (e.g. threat on queen and our turn), etc. don't tend to work. Such things
> are best left to the search to figure out.
