Don't need a struct here. Speed test shows
result is teh same. Moreover RKISS is used
mainly at startup to compute magics, so
prefer to keep it simple...RKISS ;-)
Also some assorted triviality while there.
No functional change.
These two changes go in opposite directions and it
seems that the combination is stronger than original.
Here are the positive tests at various TC:
15+0.05
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 24561 W: 4946 L: 4772 D: 14843
60+0.05
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 15259 W: 2598 L: 2423 D: 10238
40/30
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,3.00]
Total: 2570 W: 527 L: 422 D: 1621
Unfortunately there is also a bad result
with one sec time increment that needs
to be further investigated:
12+1
LLR: -2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,3.00]
Total: 2694 W: 438 L: 543 D: 1713
bench: 8340585
Rationale:
- Speed of double and float is about the same (not on the hot path anyway)
- Double makes code prettier (no need to write 1.0f, just 1.0)
- Only practical advantage of float is to use less memory, but since we never
store large arrays of double, we don't care.
No functional change.
Increase bench default depth from 12 to 13 and
add 15 new endgame positions to have broader
coverage and also more reliable nps calulcation
used for fishtest framework.
Due to the new endgame positions, where nps is higher,
the total nps is increased of about 15%.
Thanks to Lucas and Jörg for the suggestions.
No functional change, but bench number is now:
bench: 8336338
For some users -stack_size,0x4000 does not work,
so revert for now.
osX 10.6.8
gcc version 4.7.3 (MacPorts gcc47 4.7.3_2)
g++: error: unrecognized command line option '-stack_size,0x4000'
make[2]: *** [stockfish] Error 1
make[1]: *** [gcc-profile-make] Error 2
make: *** [profile-build] Error 2
No functional change.
This reverts commit 800410eef1 and instead increases
stack size.
I went through the old emails with Daylen that reported the
crash issue on Mac OS X and was fixed by 0049d3f337.
It was reported default stack size for a thread in Mac OS X is 8
megabytes while the patch that we are reverting allows to reduce
stack size at max of about 217KB, so the reason for the crash was
only marginal in MAX_MOVES value. On those emails Daylen also
hinted how to increase stack size for Mac OS X to 16MB.
So prefer to increase stack size to 16MB instad of re-inventing
the wheel and do our home grown stack as we did with the patch
that we are now reverting (it will remain anyhow in git history
for documentation purposes).
No functional change.
Unify extensions between PV and not PV nodes
and remove all but check extensions.
This is a simplification so tested at fixed number
of games where proved to not regress.
About 45k games at 15+0.05
ELO: 1.23 +-2.0 (95%) LOS: 88.5%
Total: 45643 W: 9107 L: 8946 D: 27590
About 45k games at 60+0.05
ELO: 1.07 +-1.8 (95%) LOS: 87.8%
Total: 46786 W: 7728 L: 7584 D: 31474
bench: 3172206
If the uci option 'Best Book Move' is set to true the lookup still
returns a move at random instead of the move with the highest
weight.
No functional change.
This should be enough for any legal position, even
the handcrafted ones, like the one presented by Reuven:
1Q5R/4Q1K1/B1Q5/B4Q2/N2Q4/pQ4Q1/pn2Q3/krQ4R w - -
Where currently we crash. This reverts the patch
0049d3f337 of 8/4/2012 where stack
was shrinked due to crashes while in deep analysys.
No functional change.
This greately reduces stack usage and is a
prerequisite for next patch.
Verified with 40K games both in single and SMP
case that there are no regressions.
No functional change.
This is an even safer setup proposed and tested
by Alexandre Meirelles.
Regression testing of 40K games at 10+0.05 show
result is stable both against current master:
ELO: -0.29 +-2.2 (95%) LOS: 39.7%
Total: 40000 W: 8010 L: 8043 D: 23947
and again original master (the one with smallest
time parameters):
ELO: 1.71 +-2.2 (95%) LOS: 93.8%
Total: 40000 W: 8325 L: 8128 D: 23547
Alexandre verified with LittleBlitzer time losses are
greately reduced with this setup:
Games Completed = 2100 of 3000 (Avg game length = 35.745 sec)
Settings = RR/128MB/15000ms+50ms/M 1000cp for 12 moves, D 150 moves/
Time = 39200 sec elapsed, 16800 sec remaining
1. Stockfish 190913 1091.5/2100 803-720-577 (L: m=313 t=1 i=0 a=406) (D: r=278 i=91 f=136 s=8 a=64) (tpm=212.5 d=14.75 nps=925427)
2. Houdini 2.0 w32 1008.5/2100 720-803-577 (L: m=250 t=299 i=0 a=254) (D: r=278 i=91 f=136 s=8 a=64) (tpm=204.1 d=12.04 nps=1326351)
No functional change.
Goes in the direction of avoiding time losses and seems
equivalent after almost 40K games at super fast TC of 10+0.05
ELO: 2.61 +-2.2 (95%) LOS: 99.1%
Total: 39869 W: 8258 L: 7959 D: 23652
No functional change.
Goes in the direction of avoiding time losses and seems
equivalent after almost 40K games at super fast TC of 10+0.05
ELO: 2.41 +-2.3 (95%) LOS: 98.1%
Total: 37222 W: 7843 L: 7585 D: 21794
No functional change.
The ideal setting for super-blitz might be something like:
"Emergency Base Time" = 50
"Emergency Move Time" = 5
This would give a total emergency time buffer of:
50 + 40 * 5 = 250 ms
This setup replaces the previous half cooked hack
"Don't blunder under extreme time pressure".
Test results are very good at super blitz, but keep good even
at 60 secs.
At 5+0.05
ELO: 24.30 +-2.4 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 37802 W: 10060 L: 7420 D: 20322
At 15+0.05
ELO: 13.41 +-2.9 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 22271 W: 4853 L: 3994 D: 13424
At 60+0.05
ELO: 5.30 +-3.2 (95%) LOS: 99.9%
Total: 16000 W: 2897 L: 2653 D: 10450
No functional change.
Instead of current code, give a bonus according to the frontmost
square among candidate + passed pawns.
This is a big simplification that removes a lot of accurate code
substituting it with a statistically based one using the common
'bonus' scheme, leaving to the search to sort out the details.
Results are equivalent but code is much less and, as an added bonus,
we now store candidates bitboard in pawns hash and allow this
info to be used in evaluation. This paves the way to possible
candidate pawns evaluations together with all the other pieces,
as we do for passed.
Patch passed short TC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 16927 W: 3462 L: 3308 D: 10157
Then failed (quite quickly) at long TC
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 8451 W: 1386 L: 1448 D: 5617
But when ran with a conclusive 40K fixed games at 60 secs it proved
almost equivalent to original one.
ELO: 1.08 +-2.0 (95%) LOS: 85.8%
Total: 40000 W: 6739 L: 6615 D: 26646
bench: 3884003
Now that we use pre-increment on enums, it
make sense, for code style uniformity, to
swith to pre-increment also for native types,
although there is no speed difference.
No functional change.
ENABLE_OPERATORS_ON has incorrect definitions of
post-increment and post-decrement operators.
In particularly the returned value is the variable
already incremented/decremented, while instead they
should return the variable _before_ inc/dec.
This has no real effect because are only used in loops
and where the returned value is never used, neverthless
it is wrong. The fix would be to copy the variable to a
dummy, then inc/dec the variable, then return the dummy.
So instead, rename to pre-increment that can be implemented
without the dummy, actually the current implementation
it is already the correct pre-increment, with the only change
to return a reference (an l-value) and not a copy, so
to properly mimic the pre-increment on native integers.
Spotted by Kojirion.
No functional change.
We always attempt to keep at least this emergencyBaseTime
at clock. But if available time is very low it means that
we will force ourself to play immediately to satisfy the
emergencyBaseTime constrain and so leading to blunders.
Patch is good at short and very short TC (15secs and 5secs respectively)
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 26590 W: 5426 L: 5245 D: 15919
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 5767 W: 1397 L: 1268 D: 3102
Instead seems has no influence at longer TC (60 secs)
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 79862 W: 13623 L: 13339 D: 52900
So it is committed to have a broader testing but is
to be consider still EXPERIMENTAL and can be reverted
easily.
No functional change.
In case we have less then 10ms to think as soon as
we wake up the timer, it immediately fires and calls
check_time() where due to condition:
elapsed > TimeMgr.maximum_time() - 2 * TimerResolution
the stop flag is set and search returns immediately, without
actually search anything.
Here the somewhat hacky fix is to start the timer after
at least one iteration as been completed.
No functional change.
The possible maximum mobility cardinality (plus one in case of
zero squares available) is:
- Knights: max. 8 squares -> max. 9 entries
- Bishops: max. 13 squares -> max. 14 entries
- Rooks: max. 14 squares -> max. 15 entries
- Queen: max. 27 squares -> max. 28 entries
So remove the extra entries in the table.
Spotted by Dariusz Orzechowski.
No functional change.
Union of
- LMR >= 3 plies from Gary tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/522522960ebc595d328fcafd
- allows() tweak from Reuven tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5225fa1c0ebc595d328fcb53
Both passed Step I and failed Step II.
Instead this union passed both short TC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 14525 W: 3063 L: 2874 D: 8588
And long TC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 31075 W: 5566 L: 5308 D: 20201
bench: 4238160
Idea is sound but implementation is partial. Ryan and Joona noticed that
we leave an hole in material table. Also we got another report by an user
of an odd behaviour. Namely, if you start stockfish and from the prompt
give 'bench' you get 3453941, then if you run again bench you get 3453940.
The reason is that two different positions with the same number of pieces,
but one with a bishop pair and another without have the same material key.
But after Eelco patch also different material imbalance and this yields
to this issue.
Restesting at long TC shows the patch does not really contribute at
ELO improvement. Actually patch failed at long TC.
LLR: -2.97 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 23109 W: 4104 L: 4092 D: 14913
So revert.
bench: 3453945
Prefer pos.bishop_pair() to pos.count<BISHOP>(WHITE) > 1
because the first checks that the two bishops are on
different color squares.
Although the change seems to kick in only in very rare cases,
quite surprisingly it was able to pass SPRT test at short TC.
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 39818 W: 8174 L: 7956 D: 23688
bench: 3453941
