Prefer
file_of(s) < file_of(ksq)
to the inidrect
file_of(ksq) < FILE_E
To evaluate if semiopen side to check is the left side.
Also other small touches while there.
No functional change.
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.
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.
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
Reduce eval discontinuity becuase now we kick in
king safety evaluation in many more cases.
Passed both short TC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 8708 W: 1742 L: 1613 D: 5353
And long TC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 6743 W: 1122 L: 990 D: 4631
bench: 6835416
Tighter lower bound for pawn attacks so to
activate king safety in some cases like here:
6k1/2B3p1/2Pp1p2/2nPp3/2Q1P2K/P2n1qP1/R6P/1R6 w
Original patch by Chris, further simplified by
Jörg Oster.
Passed both short TC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 30171 W: 5887 L: 5700 D: 18584
And long TC
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 20706 W: 3402 L: 3204 D: 14100
bench: 7607562
Add a bonus according if the attacking
pieces are minor or major.
Passed both short TC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 13142 W: 2625 L: 2483 D: 8034
And long TC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 18059 W: 3031 L: 2844 D: 12184
bench: 7425809
Previously some squares could be "incorrectly" awarded
to a pinned piece.
e.g. in 3k4/1q6/3b4/3Q4/8/5K2/B7/8 b - - 0 1 the black
bishop get 4 squares too many and the white queen gets 6.
Passed both short TC.
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 4871 W: 934 L: 817 D: 3120
And long TC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 38968 W: 6113 L: 5837 D: 27018
bench: 9282549
1/ eval margin and gains removed:
16bit are now free on TT entries, due to the removal of eval margin. may be useful
in the future :) gains removed: use instead by Value(128). search() and qsearch()
are now consistent in this regard.
2/ futility_margin()
linear formula instead of complex (log(depth), movecount) formula.
3/ unify pre & post futility pruning
pre futility pruning used depth < 7 plies, while post futility pruning used
depth < 4 plies. Now it's always depth < 7.
Tested with fixed number of games both at short TC:
ELO: 0.82 +-2.1 (95%) LOS: 77.3%
Total: 40000 W: 7939 L: 7845 D: 24216
And long TC
ELO: 0.59 +-2.0 (95%) LOS: 71.9%
Total: 40000 W: 6876 L: 6808 D: 26316
bench 7243575
1/ eval margin and gains removed:
- gains removed by Value(128): search() and qsearch() now behave consistently!
2/ futility_margin()
- testing showed that there is no added value in this weird (log(depth), movecount)
formula, and a much simpler linear formula is just as good. In fact, it is most
likely better, as it is not yet optimally tuned.
- the new simplified formula also means we get rid of FutilityMargins[], its
initialization code, and more importantly ss->futilityMoveCount, and the hacky
code that updates it throughout the search().
- the current formula gives negative futility margins, and there is a hidden interaction
between the move coutn pruning formula and the futility margin one: what happens is
that MCP is supposed to be triggered before we use the non-sensical negative futility
margins.
3/ unify pre & post futility pruning
- pre futility pruning (what SF calls value based pruning) used depth < 7 plies,
while post futility pruning (what SF calls static null move pruning) used depth < 4 plies.
- also the condition depth < 7 in pre futility pruning was not obvious, and it seemd
to be depth < 16 (futility_margin() returns an infinite value when depth >= 7).
Tested with fixed number of games both at short TC:
ELO: 0.82 +-2.1 (95%) LOS: 77.3%
Total: 40000 W: 7939 L: 7845 D: 24216
And long TC
ELO: 0.59 +-2.0 (95%) LOS: 71.9%
Total: 40000 W: 6876 L: 6808 D: 26316
bench: 10206576
This seems more a material imbalance topic,
anyhow test is good and so patch is applied
as is.
Passed both short TC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 17391 W: 3548 L: 3393 D: 10450
And long TC:
LLR: 3.00 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 34660 W: 5972 L: 5700 D: 22988
bench: 8291883
After 40K games at 60 secs, result is still
not clear, but not a regression against SF 4
After
ELO: 50.11 +-2.1 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 40000 W: 10547 L: 4817 D: 24636
Before
ELO: 49.51 +-2.1 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 40000 W: 10483 L: 4821 D: 24696
So re-apply the patch to avoid to
special-case this one.
bench: 7403882
Due to a strange issue (bug?) the ternary
operator does not return a BitCountType for
icc, so revert to the expression.
The same patch was already applied in
9749f1f14c
Thanks to NssY Wanyonyi for pointing out
this.
No functional change.
This reverts commit 4bc2374450 for
two reasons.
First regression testing shows almost equal
score:
Before the patch:
ELO: 49.75 +-2.5 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 27205 W: 7113 L: 3244 D: 16848
After the patch:
ELO: 48.87 +-2.9 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 20860 W: 5478 L: 2563 D: 12819
Second, and more sensible to me, this patch
increases safe check bonuses to 4 times their
original value (!) and considering:
- Values were already well tuned
- Values are highly critical
- King safety is highly critical, very TC
dependent and very difficult to test
- Our testing coverage is partial (self-testing,
blitz times)
I think is better to be safe than sorry and so
I revert the patch.
bench: 8440524
Passed both short TC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 10466 W: 2087 L: 1953 D: 6426
And long TC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 26334 W: 4540 L: 4310 D: 17484
And also proved stronger than a slightly
different patch, also succesful against master:
https://github.com/mcostalba/Stockfish/commit/dc6830a3b4ed12
But losing against current one in a match
at 60secs with SPRT [-3, 3]:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,3.00]
Total: 44484 W: 7360 L: 7463 D: 29661
bench: 9160831
Good both at short TC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 5448 W: 1133 L: 1012 D: 3303
And at long TC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 40509 W: 6836 L: 6541 D: 27132
bench: 7700683
