Reshuffle functions to define them in reverse
calling order (C style).
This allow us to define templates before they are
used. Currently it is not like this, for instance
evaluate_pieces is defined after do_evaluate that
calls it. This happens to work for some strange
reason (two phase lookup?) but we want to avoid
code that works 'by magic'.
As a nice side-effect we can now remove the function
prototypes.
No functional change.
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.
I have noticed that increasing the bench depth produces
progressively smaller and slightly faster executables at
the cost of longer compile times. Also using bench "time"
instead of "depth" seems to produce slightly smaller/faster
executables given comparable compile times.
I have made a new Makefile that generates smaller and
about 1% to 2% faster profile executables at only a
little extra compile time. On my mobile 2GHz i7 a
full profile build time goes from 3'48" to 4'13" and
the exe goes down by 5% from 416,310 bytes to 395,567
bytes.
No functional change.
Small simplification.
Passed SPRT(-3,1) both at STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17051 W: 3132 L: 3005 D: 10914
and LTC:
LLR: 4.55 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 24890 W: 3842 L: 3646 D: 17402
The rationale behind this is that I've never managed to add a
Queen on 7th rank bonus in DiscoCheck, because it never showed
to be positive (evne slightly) in testing. The only thing that
worked is Rook on 7th rank.
In terms of SF code, it seemed natural to group it with QueenOnPawn
as well as those are done together. I know you're against groupping
in general, but when it comes to non regression test, you are being
more conservative by groupping. If the group passes SPRT(-3,1) it's
safer to commit, than test every component in SPRT(-3,1) and end up
with the risk of commiting several -1 elo regression instead of just
one -1 elo regression.
In chess terms, perhaps it's just easier to manouver a Queen (which
can more also diagonaly) than a Rook. Therefore you can let the search
do its job without needing eval ad-hoc terms to guide it. For the Rook
which takes more moves to manouver such eval terms can be (marginally)
useful.
bench: 7473314
We chose this instead of negamax sign convention
(ie. from the point of view of the side to move)
because it is more in line to how the eval
table is presented.
Also some tweak to formatting while there.
No functional change.
In some legal positions like this one:
R6R/3Q4/1Q4Q1/4Q3/2Q4Q/Q4Q2/Np1Q4/kB1N1KB1 b -- 0 1
We can have a very high score, in this case 30177 and 29267
for midgame and endgame respectively, and because
VALUE_INFINITE = 30001 we have an assert in interpolate()
Midgame and endgame scores are stored in 16 bit signed integers
so we can rise VALUE_INFINITE a little bit. This does not fix
the possibility of overflow in general case, just makes the
condition more difficult to trigger and anyhow better uses all
the score width.
Raising VALUE_INFINITE to 32000 seems to fix the problem for this
particular case.
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
Here the new idea is to link pinned pieces
with king safety.
Passed both STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 10047 W: 1867 L: 1737 D: 6443
And LTC
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 10419 W: 1692 L: 1543 D: 7184
bench: 8325087
We add a penalty for each pawn which is not protected by another pawn
of the same color.
Passed both short TC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 12107 W: 2411 L: 2272 D: 7424
And long TC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 9204 W: 1605 L: 1458 D: 6141
bench: 7682173
We want all the UCI options are printed in the order in which are
assigned, so we use an index that, depending on Options.size(),
increases after each option is added to the map. The problem is
that, for instance, in the first assignment:
o["Write Debug Log"] = Option(false, on_logger);
Options.size() can value 0 or 1 according if the l-value (that
increments the size) has been evaluated after or before the
r-value (that uses the size value).
The culprit is that assignment operator in C++ is not a
sequence point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_point
(Note: to be nitpick here we actually use std::map::operator=()
that being a function can evaluate its arguments in any order)
So there is no guarantee on what term is evaluated first and
behavior is undefined by standard in this case. The net result
is that in case r-value is evaluated after l-value the last
idx is not size() - 1, but size() and in the printing loop
we miss the last option!
Bug was there since ages but only recently has been exposed by
the removal of UCI_Analyze option so that the last one becomes
UCI_Chess960 and when it is missing engine cannot play anymore
Chess960.
The fix is trivial (although a bit hacky): just increase the
last loop index.
Reported by Eric Mullins that found it on an ARM and MIPS
platforms with gcc 4.7
No functional change.
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.
Using memset on a std::vector is undefined behavior,
so manually init all the data memebers of LimitsType.
Bug intorduced in 41641e3b1e
No functional change.
Because we test for available slaves before
entering split(), we almost always allocate a
slave, only in the rare case of a race (less
then 2% of cases) this is not true, but to
special case this occurrence is not worth
the added complexity.
bench: 7451319
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
During endgame initialization we get the material
hash key of each endgame forging and ad-hoc position
that in same cases is illegal (leaves teh king under
capture). This is not a problem for the material key,
but rises an assert when SF is run in debug mode with
'testKingCapture' set in pos_is_ok().
So rewrite the code to always produce legal positions.
No functional change.
