Another attempt at retiring current asymmetric
king evaluation and use a much simpler symmetric
one. As a good side effect we can avoid recalculating
eval after a null move.
Tested in no-regression mode and passed
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 21580 W: 3752 L: 3632 D: 14196
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 18253 W: 2593 L: 2469 D: 13191
And a LTC regression test against SF DD to
verify we don't have regression against
weaker engines due to some kind of 'contempt'
effect:
ELO: 54.69 +-2.1 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 40000 W: 11072 L: 4827 D: 24101
bench: 8205159
Before it was working by accident in case of
see_sign() and failing with see() due to how
castle moves are coded (king captures the rook).
Better to explicitly filter out castling moves
and use see() without any surprise/trick.
No functional case.
Book handling belongs to GUI, we kept this code
for historical reasons, but nowdays there is
really no need of this old, (mostly) unused
and especially incorrect designed functionality.
It is up to the GUI to choose the book (far easier for
the user) and to select the book parameters. In no
place, including fishtest, TCEC, rating lists, etc.
the "own book" is used, moreover currently SF is
released without any book and even if in the future we
bundle a book in the release package, it will be the GUI
that will take care of it.
This corrects a wrong design decision that Galurung
and later Stockfish inherited from what was common
practice many yeas ago.
No functional change.
Retire current asymmetric king evaluation
and use a much simpler symmetric one.
As a side effect retire the infamous
'Aggressiveness' and 'Cowardice' UCI
options.
Tested in no-regression mode,
Passed both STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 33855 W: 5863 L: 5764 D: 22228
And LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40571 W: 5852 L: 5760 D: 28959
bench: 8321835
At root we start counting plies from 1,
instead pv[] array starts from 0. So
the variable 'ply' we use in extract_pv_from_tt
to index pv[] is misnamed, indeed it is
not the real ply, but ply-1.
The fix is to leave ply name in extract_pv_from_tt
but assign it the correct start value and
consequentely change all the references to pv[].
Instead in insert_pv_in_tt it's simpler to rename
the misnamed 'ply' in 'idx'.
The off-by-one bug was unhidden when trying to use
'ply' for what it should have been, for instance in
this position:
position fen 8/6R1/8/3k4/8/8/8/2K5 w - - 0 1
at depth 24 mate line is erroneusly truncated due
to value_from_tt() using the wrong ply.
Spotted by Ronald de Man.
bench: 8732553
If razoring conditions are satisfied and
depth is low, then directly drop in qsearch.
Passed both STC
LLR: 2.98 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 12914 W: 2345 L: 2208 D: 8361
And LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 50600 W: 7548 L: 7230 D: 35822
bench: 8739659
When there aren't legal moves after
a search, instead of returning imediately,
save bestValue in TT as in the usual case.
There is really no reason to special case
this one.
With this patch is fully fixed (again) follwing
position:
7k/6p1/6B1/5K1P/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
Also in SMP case.
bench: 8802105
After last Joona's patch there is no measurable
difference between the option set or unset.
Tested by Andreas Strangmüller with 16 threads
on his Dual Opteron 6376.
After 5000 games at 15+0.05 the result is:
1 Stockfish_14050822_T16_on : 3003 5000 (+849,=3396,-755), 50.9 %
2 Stockfish_14050822_T16_off : 2997 5000 (+755,=3396,-849), 49.1 %
bench: 880215
Instead of waiting to be allocated, actively search
for another split point to join when finishes its
search. Also modify split conditions.
This patch has been tested with 7 threads SMP and
passed both STC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 2885 W: 519 L: 410 D: 1956
And a reduced-LTC at 25+0.05
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 4401 W: 684 L: 566 D: 3151
Was then retested against regression in 3 thread case
at standard LTC of 60+0.05:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.00,0.00]
Total: 40809 W: 5446 L: 5406 D: 29957
bench: 8802105
On a final fixed game number test it failed
to prove better than standard version.
STC 15+0.05
ELO: -0.86 +-1.7 (95%) LOS: 15.8%
Total: 57578 W: 10070 L: 10213 D: 37295
bench: 8802105
If we return from split with a stale value
due to a stop or a cutoff upstream occurred,
then we exit moves loop and save a stale value
in TT before returning search().
This patch, from Joona, fixes this.
bench: 8678654
We can never have bestValue == -VALUE_INFINITE at
the end of move loop because if no legal move exists
we detect it with previous condition on !moveCount,
if a legal move exists we never prune it due to
futility pruning condition:
bestValue > VALUE_MATED_IN_MAX_PLY
So this code never executes, as I have also verified
directly.
Issue reported by Joona.
No functional change.
This is a very discussed patch with many
argumentations pro and against. The fact is
it passed both STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 16305 W: 3001 L: 2855 D: 10449
And LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 34273 W: 5180 L: 4931 D: 24162
Although it is true that a correct test should
include foreign engines, we commit it anyhow so
people can test it out in the wild, under broader
conditions.
bench: 7384368
This is more consistent with what other engines are doing.
Often people thinks that SF's scores are overblown. In the
end, it just boils down to the arbitrary way of rescaling them.
No functional change.
Tested directly at LTC because previous long
test series on this topic shows it is TC dependant.
Tested with no-regression mode because gets rid of
an ugly and ad-hoc rule.
Test at LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 67918 W: 10590 L: 10541 D: 46787
bench: 7926803
Thanks to std::bitset we can easily increase
the limit of active threads above 64.
Thanks to Lucas Braesch for pointing at the
correct solution of using std::bitset.
No functional change.
Split delta value in aspiration window so that when
search depth is less than 24 a smaller delta value
is used. The idea is that the search is likely to
be more accurate at lower depths and so we can exclude
more possibilities, 25% to be exact.
Passed STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94, 2.94) [-1.50, 4.50]
Total: 20430 W: 3775 L: 3618 D: 13037
And LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94, 2.94) [0.00, 6.00]
Total: 5032 W: 839 L: 715 D: 3478
Bench: 7451319
It has been obsoleted out already some time ago
and currently there is no point in changing eval
score according to if we are in game or analyzing.
So retire the option.
No functional change.
Try to avoid repetition draws at early midgame,
this should give an edge against weaker opponents
and reduce draw rate.
Tested for regressions with SPRT[-3, 1] and
passed both short TC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 68498 W: 12928 L: 12891 D: 42679
And long TC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40212 W: 6386 L: 6295 D: 27531
bench: 7990513
When running the following position:
8/kPp5/2P3p1/p1P1p1P1/2PpPp2/3p1p2/3P1P2/5K2 w - - 0 1
An assert is raised at depth 92:
assert(-VALUE_INFINITE <= alpha && alpha < beta && beta <= VALUE_INFINITE);
This is because it happens that beta = 29832,
so rbeta = 30032 that is > VALUE_INFINITE
Bug spotted and analyzed by Uri, fix suggested by Joerg.
Other fixes where possible but this one is pointed
exactly at the source of the bug, so it is the best
from a code documentation point of view.
bench: 8430785
Actually MultiCut is too different from current scheme.
Note that neither ProbCut is exactly what we do because
we try just a handful of captures instead of all moves,
nevertheless it seems more in line with what we do.
Suggested by Joona.
No functional change.
Makes more sense than returning a draw score. Tested
with reduced MAX_PLY = 30 and passed both short TC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 17434 W: 3345 L: 3194 D: 10895
And long TC
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 2610 W: 488 L: 373 D: 1749
With current limit of MAX_PLY = 100 the patch should not
introduce any measurable change, nevertheless is the correct
approach.
Idea of returning eval is from Michel Van den Bergh.
bench: 8430785
Although does not change ELO level, it seems
verification is useful in many zugzwang positions
as reported by many sources.
So revert this simplification.
bench: 8430785
Tested with SPRT in simplification mode [-4.00,0.00],
this ensures that the patch is (very probably) not
a regression.
Passed both short TC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.00,0.00]
Total: 27543 W: 4278 L: 4209 D: 19056
And long TC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.00,0.00]
Total: 39483 W: 7325 L: 7305 D: 24853
bench: 8347121
