Official release version of Stockfish 11.
Bench: 5156767
-----------------------
It is our pleasure to release Stockfish 11 to our fans and supporters.
Downloads are freely available at http://stockfishchess.org/download/
This version 11 of Stockfish is 50 Elo stronger than the last version, and
150 Elo stronger than the version which famously lost a match to AlphaZero
two years ago. This makes Stockfish the strongest chess engine running on
your smartphone or normal desktop PC, and we estimate that on a modern four
cores CPU, Stockfish 11 could give 1:1000 time odds to the human chess champion
having classical time control, and be on par with him. More specific data,
including nice cumulative curves for the progression of Stockfish strength
over the last seven years, can be found on [our progression page][1], at
[Stefan Pohl site][2] or at [NextChessMove][3].
In October 2019 Stockfish has regained its crown in the TCEC competition,
beating in the superfinal of season 16 an evolution of the neural-network
engine Leela that had won the previous season. This clash of style between an
alpha-beta and an neural-network engine produced spectacular chess as always,
with Stockfish [emerging victorious this time][0].
Compared to Stockfish 10, we have made hundreds of improvements to the
[codebase][4], from the evaluation function (improvements in king attacks,
middlegame/endgame transitions, and many more) to the search algorithm (some
innovative coordination methods for the searching threads, better pruning of
unsound tactical lines, etc), and fixed a couple of bugs en passant.
Our testing framework [Fishtest][5] has also seen its share of improvements
to continue propelling Stockfish forward. Along with a lot of small enhancements,
Fishtest has switched to new SPRT bounds to increase the chance of catching Elo
gainers, along with a new testing book and the use of pentanomial statistics to
be more resource-efficient.
Overall the Stockfish project is an example of open-source at its best, as
its buzzing community of programmers sharing ideas and daily reviewing their
colleagues' patches proves to be an ideal form to develop innovative ideas for
chess programming, while the mathematical accuracy of the testing framework
allows us an unparalleled level of quality control for each patch we put in
the engine. If you wish, you too can help our ongoing efforts to keep improving
it, just [get involved][6] :-)
Stockfish is also special in that every chess fan, even if not a programmer,
[can easily help][7] the team to improve the engine by connecting their PC to
Fishtest and let it play some games in the background to test new patches.
Individual contributions vary from 1 to 32 cores, but this year Bojun Guo
made it a little bit special by plugging a whole data center during the whole
year: it was a vertiginous experience to see Fishtest spikes with 17466 cores
connected playing [25600 games/minute][8]. Thanks Guo!
The Stockfish team
[0]: <http://mytcecexperience.blogspot.com/2019/10/season-16-superfinal-games-91-100.html>
[1]: <https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/wiki/Regression-Tests>
[2]: <https://www.sp-cc.de/index.htm>
[3]: <https://nextchessmove.com/dev-builds>
[4]: <https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish>
[5]: <https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests>
[6]: <https://stockfishchess.org/get-involved/>
[7]: <https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/wiki>
[8]: <https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/fishcooking/lebEmG5vgng%5B1-25%5D>
Based on recent improvement of futility pruning by @locutus2 : we lower
the futility margin to apply it for more nodes but as a compensation
we also lower the history threshold to apply it to less nodes. Further
work in tweaking constants can always be done - numbers are guessed
"by hand" and are not results of some tuning, maybe there is some more
Elo to squeeze from this part of code.
Passed STC
LLR: 2.98 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.00,3.00}
Total: 15300 W: 3081 L: 2936 D: 9283
Ptnml(0-2): 260, 1816, 3382, 1900, 290
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e18da3b27dab692fcf9a158
Passed LTC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {0.00,2.00}
Total: 108670 W: 14509 L: 14070 D: 80091
Ptnml(0-2): 813, 10259, 31736, 10665, 831
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e18fc9627dab692fcf9a180
Bench: 4643972
This patch makes Stockfish search same depth again if > 60% of optimum time is
already used, instead of trying the next iteration. The idea is that the next
iteration will generally take about the same amount of time as has already been
used in total. When we are likely to begin the last iteration, as judged by total
time taken so far > 0.6 * optimum time, searching the last depth again instead of
increasing the depth still helps the other threads in lazy SMP and prepares better
move ordering for the next moves.
STC :
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.00,3.00}
Total: 13436 W: 2695 L: 2558 D: 8183
Ptnml(0-2): 222, 1538, 3087, 1611, 253
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e1618a761fe5f83a67dd964
LTC :
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {0.00,2.00}
Total: 32160 W: 4261 L: 4047 D: 23852
Ptnml(0-2): 211, 2988, 9448, 3135, 247
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e162ca061fe5f83a67dd96d
The code was revised as suggested by @vondele for multithreading:
STC (8 threads):
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) {0.00,2.00}
Total: 16640 W: 2049 L: 1885 D: 12706
Ptnml(0-2): 119, 1369, 5158, 1557, 108
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e19826a2cc590e03c3c2f52
LTC (8 threads):
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.00,3.00}
Total: 16536 W: 2758 L: 2629 D: 11149
Ptnml(0-2): 182, 1758, 4296, 1802, 224
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e18b91a27dab692fcf9a140
Thanks to those discussing Stockfish lazy SMP on fishcooking which made me
try this, and to @vondele for suggestions and doing related tests.
See full discussion in the pull request thread:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2482
Bench: 4586187
This patch shows a description of the compiler used to compile Stockfish,
when starting from the console.
Usage:
```
./stockfish
compiler
```
Example of output:
```
Stockfish 120120 64 POPCNT by T. Romstad, M. Costalba, J. Kiiski, G. Linscott
Compiled by clang++ 9.0.0 on Apple
__VERSION__ macro expands to: 4.2.1 Compatible Apple LLVM 9.0.0 (clang-900.0.38)
```
No functional change
This updates estimates from 1.5 year ago, and adds missing terms. All estimates
from tests run on fishtest at 10+0.1 (STC), 20000 games, error bars +- 3 Elo,
see the original message in the pull request for the full list of tests.
Noteworthy changes are step 7 (futility pruning) going from ~30 to ~50 Elo
and step 13 (pruning at shallow depth) going from ~170 to ~200 Elo.
Full list of tests: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2401
@Rocky640 made the suggestion to look at time control dependence of these terms.
I picked two large terms (early futility pruning and singular extension), so with
small relative error. It turns out it is actually quite interesting (see figure 1).
Contrary to my expectation, the Elo gain for early futility pruning is pretty time
control sensitive, while singular extension gain is not.
Figure 1: TC dependence of two search terms
Going back to the old measurement of futility pruning (30 Elo vs today 50 Elo),
the code is actually identical but the margins have changed. It seems like a nice
example of how connected terms in search really are, i.e. the value of early futility
pruning increased significantly due to changes elsewhere in search.
No functional change.
User "adentong" reported recently of a game where Stockfish blundered a game
in a tournament because during a search there was an hash-table issue for
positions inside the tree very close to the 50-moves draw rule. This is part
of a problem which is commonly referred to as the Graph History Interaction (GHI),
and is difficult to solve in computer chess because storing the 50-moves counter
in the hash-table loses Elo in general.
Links:
Issue 2451 : https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/2451
About the GHI : https://www.chessprogramming.org/Graph_History_Interaction
This patch tries to address the issue in this particular game and similar
reported games: it prevents that values from the transposition table are
getting used when the 50-move counter is close to reaching 100 (). The idea
is that in such cases values from previous searches, with a much lower 50-move
count, become less and less reliable.
More precisely, the heuristic we use in this patch is that we don't take the
transposition table cutoff when we have reached a 45-moves limit, but let the
search continue doing its job. There is a possible slowdown involved, but it will
also help to find either a draw when it thought to be losing, or a way to avoid
the draw by 50-move rule. This heuristics probably will not fix all possible cases,
but seems to be working reasonably well in practice while not losing too much Elo.
Passed non-regression tests:
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 274452 W: 59700 L: 60075 D: 154677
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5df546116932658fe9b451bf
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 95235 W: 15297 L: 15292 D: 64646
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5df69c926932658fe9b4520e
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2453
Bench: 4586187
SEE (Static Exchange Evaluation) is a critical component, so we might
indulge some tricks to make it faster. Another pull request #2469 showed
some speedup by removing templates, this version uses Ronald de Man
(@syzygy1) SEE implementation which also unrolls the for loop by
suppressing the min_attacker() helper function and exits as soon as
the last swap is conclusive.
See Ronald de Man version there:
https://github.com/syzygy1/Cfish/blob/master/src/position.c
Patch testes against pull request #2469:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.00,3.00}
Total: 19365 W: 3771 L: 3634 D: 11960
Ptnml(0-2): 241, 1984, 5099, 2092, 255
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e10eb135e5436dd91b27ba3
And since we are using new SPRT statistics, and that both pull requests
finished with less than 20000 games I also tested against master as
a speed-up:
LLR: 2.99 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.00,3.00}
Total: 18878 W: 3674 L: 3539 D: 11665
Ptnml(0-2): 193, 1999, 4966, 2019, 250
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e10febf12ef906c8b388745
Non functional change
This patch excludes blockers for king from mobility area. It was tried a couple
of times by now but now it passed. Performance is not enormously good but this
patch makes a lot of sence - blockers for king can't really move until king moves
(in most cases) so logic behind it is the same as behind excluding king square
from mobility area.
STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dec388651219d7befdc76be
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 6155 W: 1428 L: 1300 D: 3427
LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dec4a3151219d7befdc76d3
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 120800 W: 19636 L: 19134 D: 82030
Bench: 5173081
This patch simplifies latest @MJZ1977 elo gainer. Seems like PvNode check in
condition of last capture extension is not needed. Note - even if this is a
simplification it actually causes this extension to be applied more often, thus
strengthening effect of @MJZ1977's patch.
passed STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5deb9a3eb7bdefd50db28d0e
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 80244 W: 17421 L: 17414 D: 45409
passed LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5deba860b7bdefd50db28d11
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 21506 W: 3565 L: 3446 D: 14495
Bench: 5097036
As reported on the forum it is possible, on very rare occasions, that we are
trying to print a PV line with an invalid previousScore, although this line
has a valid actual score. This patch fixes output of PV lines with invalid
scores in a MultiPV search. This is a follow-up patch to 8b15961 and makes
the fix finally complete.
The reason is the i <= pvIdx condition which probably is a leftover from the
times there was a special root search function. This check is no longer needed
today and prevents PV lines past the current one (current pvIdx) to be flagged
as updated even though they do have a valid score.
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/commit/8b15961349e18a9ba113973c53f53913d0cd0fadhttps://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/fishcooking/PrnoDLvMvro
No functional change.
the removed line is not needed, since with the conditions on SE, eval
equals ttValue (except inCheck), which must be larger than beta if the second condition
is true.
The removed line is also incorrect as eval might be VALUE_NONE at this
location if inCheck. This removal addresses part of https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2406#issuecomment-552642608
No functional change.
this patch extends bench to print static evaluations.
./stockfish bench 16 1 1 filename eval
will now print the evaluations for all fens in the file.
This complements the various 'go' flavors for bench and might be useful for debugging and/or tuning.
No functional change.
In a recent commit, "Introduce king flank defenders," a term was introduced
by Michael Chaly (@Vizvezdenec) to reduce king danger based on king defenders,
i.e., friendly attacks on our King Flank and Camp. This is a powerful idea
and broadly applicable to all of our pieces.
An earlier, but narrower, version of a similar idea was already coded into
king danger, with a term reducing king danger simply if we had a bishop and
king attacking the same square -- there is also a similar term for knights,
but roughly three times larger. I had attempted to tweak this term's coefficient
fairly recently, in a series of tests in early September which increased this
coefficient. All failed STC with significantly negative scores.
Now that the king flank defenders term has been introduced, it appears that
the bishop-defense term can be simplified away without compensation or
significant Elo loss.
Where do we go from here? This PR is a natural follow-up to "Introduce king
flank defenders," which proposed simplification with existing and overlapping
terms, such as this one. That PR also mentioned that the coefficient it
introduced appeared arbitrary, so perhaps this PR can facilitate a tweak to
increase king flank defenders' coefficient.
Additionally, this pull request is extremely similar to https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1821,
which was (coincidentally) merged a year ago, to the day (November 23, 2018).
That patch also simplified away a linear king danger tropism term, which was
soon after replaced with a quadratic term by @Vizvezdenec (which would not have
passed without the simplification). @Vizvezdenec, again by coincidence, has
recently been trying to implement a quadratic term, this time for defenders
rather than attackers. This history of this evaluation code suggests that
this simplification might be enough to help a patch for quadratic king-flank
defenders pass.
Bench: 4959670
STC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 22209 W: 4920 L: 4800 D: 12489
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dd444d914339111b9b6bed7
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 152107 W: 24658 L: 24743 D: 102706
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dd4be31f531e81cf278ea9d
Interesting discussion on Github about this pull request:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2424
---
This pull request was opened less than one week before the holiday of
Thanksgiving here in the United States. In keeping with the holiday
tradition of expressing gratitude, I would like to thank our generous
CPU donors, talented forum contributors, innovative developers, speedy
fishtest approvers, and especially our hardworking server maintainers
(@ppigazzini and @tomtor). Thank you all for a year of great Stockfish
progress!
This patch measures how frequently search is exploring new configurations.
This is done be computing a running average of ttHit. The ttHitAverage rate
is somewhat low (e.g. 30% for startpos) in the normal case, while it can be
very high if no progress is made (e.g. 90% for the fortress I used for testing).
This information can be used to influence search. In this patch, by adjusting
reductions if the rate > 50%. A first version (using a low ttHitAverageResolution
and this 50% threshold) passed testing:
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 26425 W: 5837 L: 5650 D: 14938
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dcede8b0ebc5902563258fa
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 32313 W: 5392 L: 5128 D: 21793
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dcefb1f0ebc590256325c0e
However, as discussed in pull request 2414, using a larger ttHitAverageResolution
gives a better approximation of the underlying distributions. This needs a slight
adjustment for the threshold as the new distributions are shifted a bit compared
to the older ones, and this threshold seemingly is sensitive (we used 0.53125 here).
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2414
This final version also passed testing, and is used for the patch:
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 16025 W: 3555 L: 3399 D: 9071
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dd070b90ebc5902579e20c2
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 37576 W: 6277 L: 5998 D: 25301
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dd0f58e6f544e798086f224
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2414
Bench: 4989584
This patch implements what we have been trying for quite some time -
dependance of kingdanger on balance of attackers and defenders of king
flank, to avoid overestimate attacking power if the opponent has enough
defenders of king position. We already have some form of it in bishop
and knight defenders - this is further work in this direction.
What to do based on this?
1) constant 4 is arbitrary, maybe it is not optimal
2) maybe we can use quadratic formula as in kingflankattack
3) simplification into alrealy existing terms is always a possibility :)
4) overall kingdanger tuning always can be done.
passed STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dcf40560ebc590256325f30
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 26298 W: 5819 L: 5632 D: 14847
passed LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dcfa5760ebc590256326464
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 30600 W: 5042 L: 4784 D: 20774
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2415
Bench: 4496847
Introduce OutpostRank[RANK_NB] which contains a bonus according to
the rank of the outpost. We use it for the primary Outpost bonus.
The values are based on the trends of the SPSA tuning run with some
manual tweaks.
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 27454 W: 6059 L: 5869 D: 15526
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dcadba20ebc590256922f09
Passed LTC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 57950 W: 9443 L: 9112 D: 39395
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dcaea880ebc5902569230bc
Bench: 4778405
----------------------------
The inspiration for this patch came from Stefan Geschwentner's attempt
of modifying BishopPawns into a rank-based penalty. Michael Stembera
suggested that maybe the S(0, 0) ranks (3rd, 7th and also maybe 8th)
can still be tuned. This would expand our definition of Outpost and
OutpostRanks would be removed altogether. Special thanks to Mark Tenzer
for all the help and excellent suggestions.
The removed lines approximately duplicate equivalent logic in the movePicker.
Adjust the futility_move_count to componsate for some difference
(the movePicker prunes one iteration of the move loop later).
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 8114 W: 1810 L: 1663 D: 4641
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dc6afe60ebc5902562bd318
Passed LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 89956 W: 14473 L: 14460 D: 61023
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dc6bdcf0ebc5902562bd3c0
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2407
Bench: 4256440
---------------------
How to continue from there?
It would be interesting to see if we can extract some Elo gain
from the new futility_move_count formula, for instance by somehow
incorporating the final -1 in the 5 constant, or adding a linear
term to the quadratics...
```
futility_move_count = (5 + depth * depth) * (1 + improving) / 2 - 1
```
Current master 648c7ec25d will generate an
incorrect mate score for:
```
setoption name Hash value 8
setoption name Threads value 1
position fen 8/1p2KP2/1p4q1/1Pp5/2P5/N1Pp1k2/3P4/1N6 b - - 76 40
go depth 49
```
even though the position is a draw. Generally, SF tries to display only
proven mate scores, so this is a bug.
This was posted http://www.talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=72166
by Uri Blass, with the correct analysis that this must be related to the
50 moves draw rule being ignored somewhere.
Indeed, this is possible as positions and there eval are stored in the TT,
without reference to the 50mr counter. Depending on the search path followed
a position can thus be mate or draw in the TT (GHI or Graph history interaction).
Therefore, to prove mate lines, the TT content has to be used with care. Rather
than ignoring TT content in general or for mate scores (which impact search or
mate finding), it is possible to be more selective. In particular, @WOnder93
suggested to only ignore the TT if the 50mr draw ply is closer than the mate
ply. This patch implements this idea, by clamping the eval in the TT to
+-VALUE_MATED_IN_MAX_PLY. This retains the TTmove, but causes a research of
these lines (with the current 50mr counter) as needed.
This patch hardly ever affects search (as indicated by the unchanged
bench), but fixes the testcase. As the conditions are very specific,
also mate finding will almost never be less efficient (testing welcome).
It was also shown to pass STC and LTC non-regression testing, in a form
using if/then/else instead of ternary operators:
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 93605 W: 15346 L: 15340 D: 62919
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5db45bb00ebc5908127538d4
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 33873 W: 7359 L: 7261 D: 19253
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5db4c8940ebc5902d6b146fc
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/2370
Bench: 4362323
This reverts the previous commit. The PSQT changes in this previous
commit originated from tests against quite an old version of master
which did not include the other PSQT changes of 474d133 for the other
pieces, and there might be some unknown interactions between the PSQT
tables. So we made a non-regression test of the last commit against the
last-but-one commit. This test failed, leading to the revert decision.
Failed non-regression test:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 95536 W: 15047 L: 15347 D: 65142
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dc0ba1d0ebc5904493b0112
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2395
Bench: 4362323
As Stockfish developers, we aim to make our code as legible and as close
to simple English as possible. However, one of the more notable exceptions
to this rule concerns operations between Squares and Bitboards.
Prior to this pull request, AND, OR, and XOR were only defined when the
Bitboard was the first operand, and the Square the second. For example,
for a Bitboard b and Square s, "b & s" would be valid but "s & b" would not.
This conflicts with natural reasoning about logical operators, both
mathematically and intuitively, which says that logical operators should
commute.
More dangerously, however, both Square and Bitboard are defined as integers
"under the hood." As a result, code like "s & b" would still compile and give
reasonable bench values. This trap occasionally ensnares even experienced
Stockfish developers, but it is especially dangerous for new developers not
aware of this peculiarity. Because there is no compilation or runtime error,
and a reasonable bench, only a close review by approvers can spot this error
when a test has been submitted--and many times, these bugs have slipped past
review. This is by far the most common logical error on Fishtest, and has
wasted uncountable STC games over the years.
However, it can be fixed by adding three non-functional lines of code. In this
patch, we define the operators when the operands are provided in the opposite
order, i.e., we make AND, OR, and XOR commutative for Bitboards and Squares.
Because these are inline methods and implemented identically, the executable
does not change at all.
This patch has the small side-effect of requiring Squares to be explicitly
cast to integers before AND, OR, or XOR with integers. This is only performed
twice in Stockfish's source code, and again does not change the executable at
all (since Square is an enum defined as an integer anyway).
For demonstration purposes, this pull request also inverts the order of one AND
and one OR, to show that neither the bench nor the executable change. (This
change can be removed before merging, if preferred.)
I hope that this pull request significantly lowers the barrier-of-entry for new
developer to join the Stockfish project. I also hope that this change will improve
our efficiency in using our generous CPU donors' machines, since it will remove
one of the most common causes of buggy tests.
Following helpful review and comments by Michael Stembera (@mstembera), we add
a further clean-up by implementing OR for two Squares, to anticipate additional
traps developers may encounter and handle them cleanly.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2387
No functional change.
Simplify the king ring initialization and make it more regular, by just
moving the king square off the edges and using PseudoAttacks by king from
this new square.
There is a small functional difference from the previous master, as the
old master excludes the original ksq square while this patch always includes
the nine squares block (after moving the king from the edges). Additionally,
master does not adjust the kingRing down if we are on relative rank 8,
while this patch treats all of the edges the same.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 13263 W: 2968 L: 2830 D: 7465
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5db872830ebc5902d1f388aa
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 72996 W: 11819 L: 11780 D: 49397
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5db899c20ebc5902d1f38b5e
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2384
Bench: 4959244
Make dynamic contempt weight factor dependent on static contempt so that higher
static contempt implies less dynamic contempt and vice versa. For default contempt
24 this is a non-functional change. But tests with contempt 0 shows an elo gain.
Also today is my birthday so i have already give to myself a gift with this patch :-)!
Further proceedings:
in the past we checked for default contempt that it doesn't regress against
contempt 0. Now that the later is stronger and the former is the same strength
this should be rechecked. Perhaps the default contempt have to be lowered.
It would be interesting to get some idea of the impact of this patch outside
of the 0-24 contempt range.
STC: (both with contempt=0)
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 21912 W: 3898 L: 3740 D: 14274
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5db74b6f0ebc5902d1f37405
LTC: (both with contempt=0)
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 27172 W: 3350 L: 3126 D: 20696
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5db760020ebc5902d1f375d0
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2382
No functional change (for current default contempt 24).
This PR refactors update_quiet_stats, update_capture_stats and search to more clearly reflect what is actually done.
Effectively, all stat updates that need to be done after search is finished and a bestmove is found,
are collected in a new function ```final_stats_update()```. This shortens our main search routine, and simplifies ```update_quiet_stats```.
The latter function is now more easily reusable with fewer arguments, as the handling of ```quietsSearched``` is only needed in ```final_stats_update```.
```update_capture_stats```, which was only called once is now integrated in ```final_stats_update```, which allows for removing a branch and reusing some ```stat_bonus``` calls. The need for refactoring was also suggested by the fact that the comments of ```update_quiet_stats``` and ```update_capture_stats``` were incorrect (e.g. ```update_capture_stats``` was called, correctly, also when the bestmove was a quiet and not a capture).
passed non-regression STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 75196 W: 16364 L: 16347 D: 42485
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5db004ec0ebc5902c06db9e1
The diff is most easily readable as ```git diff master --patience```
No functional change
- Cleanups by Alain
- Group king attacks and king defenses
- Signature of futility_move_count()
- Use is_discovery_check_on_king()
- Simplify backward definition
- Use static asserts in move generator
- Factor a statement in move generator
No functional change
Stockfish crashes immediately if users enter a wrong file name (or even an existing
folder name) for debug log file. It may be hard for users to find out since it prints
nothing. If they enter the string via a chess GUI, the chess GUI may remember and
auto-send to Stockfish next time, makes Stockfish crashes all the time. Bug report by
Nguyen Hong Pham in this issue: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/2365
This patch avoids the crash and instead prefers to exit gracefully with a error
message on std:cerr, like we do with the fenFile for instance.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2366
No functional change.
With the current questions and issues around threading, I had a look at
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/2299.
It seems there was a problem with data races when requesting eval via UCI while
a search was already running. To fix this an extra thread uithread was created,
presumably to avoid an overlap with Threads.main() that was causing problems.
Making this eval request seems to be outside the scope of UCI, and @vondele also
reports that the data race is not even fixed reliably by this change. I suggest
we simplify the threading here by removing this uithread and adding a comment
signaling that user should not request eval when a search is already running.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2310
No functional change.
The current bench is missing a position with high 50 moves rule counter,
making most 'shuffle' tests based on 50mr > N seem non-functional.
This patch adds one FEN with high 50mr counter to address this issue
(taken from a recent tcec game).
Four new FENs:
- position with high 50mr counter
- tactical position with many captures, checks, extensions, fails high/low
- two losses by Stockfish in the S16 bonus games against Houdini
See the pull request for nice comments by @Alayan-stk-2 about each position
in bench: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2338
Bench: 4590210
Previously, we used various control statements and ternary operators to divide
Outpost into four bonuses, based on whether the outpost was for a knight or
bishop, and whether it was currently an Outpost or merely a potential ("reachable")
one in the future. Bishop outposts, however, have traditionally been worth far
less Elo in testing. An attempt to remove them altogether passed STC, but failed LTC.
Here we include a narrower simplification, removing the reachable Outpost bonus
for bishops. This bonus was always suspect, given that its current implementation
conflicts directly with BishopPawns. BishopPawns penalizes our bishops based on the
number of friendly pawns on the same color of square, but by definition, Outposts
must be pawn-protected! This PR helps to alleviate this conceptual contradiction
without loss of Elo and with slightly simpler code.
On a code level, this allows us to simplify a ternary operator into the previous
"if" block and distribute a multiplication into an existing constant Score. On a
conceptual level, we retire one of the four traditional Outpost bonuses.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 22277 W: 4882 L: 4762 D: 12633
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d9aeed60ebc5902b6cf9751
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 51206 W: 8353 L: 8280 D: 34573
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d9af1940ebc5902b6cf9cd5
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2352
Bench: 3941591
This patch changes the base aspiration window size depending on the absolute
value of the previous iteration score, increasing it away from zero. This
stems from the observation that the further away from zero, the more likely
the evaluation is to change significantly with more depth. Conversely, a
tighter aspiration window is more efficient when close to zero.
A beneficial side-effect is that analysis of won positions without a quick
mate is less prone to waste nodes in repeated fail-high that change the eval
by tiny steps.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 60102 W: 13327 L: 12868 D: 33907
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d9a70d40ebc5902b6cf39ba
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 155553 W: 25745 L: 25141 D: 104667
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d9a7ca30ebc5902b6cf4028
Future work : the values used in this patch were only a reasonable guess.
Further testing should unveil more optimal values. However, the aspiration
window is rather tight with a minimum of 21 internal units, so discrete
integers put a practical limitation to such tweaking.
More exotic experiments around the aspiration window parameters could also
be tried, but efficient conditions to adjust the base aspiration window size
or allow it to not be centered on the current evaluation are not obvious.
The aspiration window increases after a fail-high or a fail-low is another
avenue to explore for potential enhancements.
Bench: 4043748
Run as a simplification
a) insures that pawn attacks are always included in the pawn span
(this "fixes" the case where some outpost or reachable outpost
bonus were awarded on squares controlled by enemy pawns).
b) compute the full span only if not "backward" or not "blocked".
By looking at "blocked" instead of "opposed", we get a nice simpli-
fication and the "new" outpost detection is almost identical, except
a few borderline cases on rank 4.
passed STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d9950730ebc5902b6cefb90
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 79113 W: 17168 L: 17159 D: 44786
passed LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d99d14e0ebc5902b6cf0692
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 41286 W: 6819 L: 6731 D: 27736
See https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2348
bench: 3812891
It is always used as a bool, so let's make it a bool straight away.
We can always redefine it as a Piece in a later patch if we want
to use the piece type or the piece color.
No functional change.
Simplification that eliminates ONE_PLY, based on a suggestion in the forum that
support for fractional plies has never been used, and @mcostalba's openness to
the idea of eliminating it. We lose a little bit of type safety by making Depth
an integer, but in return we simplify the code in search.cpp quite significantly.
No functional change
------------------------------------------
The argument favoring eliminating ONE_PLY:
* The term “ONE_PLY” comes up in a lot of forum posts (474 to date)
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/fishcooking/ONE_PLY%7Csort:relevance
* There is occasionally a commit that breaks invariance of the code
with respect to ONE_PLY
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/fishcooking/ONE_PLY%7Csort:date/fishcooking/ZIPdYj6k0fk/KdNGcPWeBgAJ
* To prevent such commits, there is a Travis CI hack that doubles ONE_PLY
and rechecks bench
* Sustaining ONE_PLY has, alas, not resulted in any improvements to the
engine, despite many individuals testing many experiments over 5 years.
The strongest argument in favor of preserving ONE_PLY comes from @locutus:
“If we use par example ONE_PLY=256 the parameter space is increases by the
factor 256. So it seems very unlikely that the optimal setting is in the
subspace of ONE_PLY=1.”
There is a strong theoretical impediment to fractional depth systems: the
transposition table uses depth to determine when a stored result is good
enough to supply an answer for a current search. If you have fractional
depths, then different pathways to the position can be at fractionally
different depths.
In the end, there are three separate times when a proposal to remove ONE_PLY
was defeated by the suggestion to “give it a few more months.” So… it seems
like time to remove this distraction from the community.
See the pull request here:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2289
Remove temporary array of shelters and avoid iterating over it each time to find
if the shelter values after castling are better than the current value.
Work done on top of https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2277
Speed benchmark did not measure any difference.
No functional change
In lazySMP it makes sense to prune a little more, as multiple threads
search wider. We thus increase the prefactor of the reductions slowly
as a function of the threads. The prefactor of the log(threads) term
is a parameter, this pull request uses 1/2 after testing.
passed STC @ 8threads:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 118125 W: 23151 L: 22462 D: 72512
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d8bbf4d0ebc59509180f217
passed LTC @ 8threads:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 67546 W: 10630 L: 10279 D: 46637
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d8c463b0ebc5950918167e8
passed ~LTC @ 14threads:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 74271 W: 12421 L: 12040 D: 49810
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d8db1f50ebc590f3beb24ef
Note:
A larger prefactor (1) passed similar tests at STC and LTC (8 threads),
while a very large one (2) passed STC quickly but failed LTC (8 threads).
For the single-threaded case there is no functional change.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2337
Bench: 4088701
Fixup: remove redundant code.
A curious feature of Stockfish's current extension code is its repeated
use of "else if." In most cases, this makes no functional difference,
because no more than one extension is applied; once one extension has
been applied, the remaining ones can be safely ignored.
However, if most singular extension search conditions are true, except
"value < singularBeta", no non-singular extensions (e.g., castling) can
be performed!
Three tests were submitted, for three of Stockfish's four non-singular
extensions. I excluded the shuffle extension, because historically there
have been concerns about the fragility of its conditions, and I did not
want to risk causing any serious search problems.
- Modifying the passed pawn extension appeared roughly neutral at STC. At
best, it appeared to be an improvement of less than 1 Elo.
- Modifying check extension performed very poorly at STC
- Modifying castling extension (this patch) produced a long "yellow" run
at STC (insufficient to pass, but positive score) and a strong LTC.
In simple terms, prior to this patch castling extension was occasionally
not applied during search--on castling moves. The effect of this patch is
to perform castling extension on more castling moves. It does so without
adding any code complexity, simply by replacing an "else if" with "if" and
reordering some existing code.
STC:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 108114 W: 23877 L: 23615 D: 60622
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d8d86bd0ebc590f3beb0c88
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 20862 W: 3517 L: 3298 D: 14047
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d8d99cd0ebc590f3beb1899
Bench: 3728191
--------
Where do we go from here?
- It seems strange to me that check extension performed so poorly -- clearly
some of the singular extension conditions are also very important for check
extension. I am not an expert in search, and I do not have any intuition
about which of the eight conditions is/are the culprit. I will try a
succession of eight STC tests to identify the relevant conditions, then try
to replicate this PR for check extension.
- Recent tests interacting with the castle extension may deserve retesting.
I will shortly resubmit a few of my recent castling extension tweaks, rebased
on this PR/commit.
My deepest thanks to @noobpwnftw for the extraordinary CPU donation, and to
all our other fishtest volunteers, who made it possible for a speculative LTC
to pass in 70 minutes!
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2331
Remove the RookOnPawn logic (for rook on rank 5 and above aligning with pawns
on same row or file) which was overlapping with a few other parameters.
Inspired by @31m059 interesting result hinting that a direct attack on pawns
instead of PseudoAttacks might work.
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d89a7c70ebc595091801b8d
After a few attempts by me and @31m059, and some long STC greens but red LTC,
as a proof of concept I first tried a local SPSA at VSTC trying to tune related
rook psqt rows, and mainly some rook related stuff in evaluate.cpp.
Result was STC green, but still red LTC,
Finally a 100M fishtest SPSA at LTC proved successful both at STC and LTC.
All this was possible with the awesome fishtest contributors.
At some point, I had 850 workers on the last test !
Run as a simplification
STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d8d68f40ebc590f3beaf171
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 7399 W: 1693 L: 1543 D: 4163
LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d8d70270ebc590f3beaf63c
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 41617 W: 6981 L: 6894 D: 27742
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2329
bench: 4037914
Revert the previous patch now that the binary for the super-final
of TCEC season 16 has been sent.
Maybe the feature of showing the name of compiler will be added to the
master branch in the future. But we may use a cleaner way to code it, see
some ideas using the Makefile approach at the end of pull request #2327 :
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2327
Bench: 3618154
This patch shows a description of the compiler used to compile Stockfish,
when starting from the console.
Usage:
```
./stockfish
compiler
```
Example of output:
```
Stockfish 240919 64 POPCNT by T. Romstad, M. Costalba, J. Kiiski, G. Linscott
Compiled by clang++ 9.0.0 on Apple
__VERSION__ macro expands to: 4.2.1 Compatible Apple LLVM 9.0.0 (clang-900.0.38)
```
No functional change
This patch replaces the obscure expressions mapping files ABCDEFGH to ABCDDCBA
by explicite calls to an auxiliary function:
old: f = min(f, ~f)
new: f = map_to_queenside(f)
We used the Golbolt web site (https://godbolt.org) to check that the current
code for the auxiliary function is optimal.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 30292 W: 6756 L: 6651 D: 16885
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d8676720ebc5971531d6aa1
Achieved with a bit of help from Sopel97, snicolet and vondele, thanks everyone!
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2325
No functional change
This change to the Rook psqt encourages rook lifts to the third rank
on the two center files.
STC 10+0.1 th 1 :
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 40654 W: 9028 L: 8704 D: 22922
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d885da60ebc5906dd3e9fcd
LTC 60+0.6 th 1 :
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 56963 W: 9530 L: 9196 D: 38237
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d88618c0ebc5906dd3ea45f
Thanks to @snicolet for mentioning that Komodo does this a lot and
Stockfish doesn't, which gave me the idea for this patch, and to
@noobpwnftw for providing cores to fishtest which allowed very quick
testing.
Future work: perhaps this can be refined somehow to encourage this
on other files, my attempts have failed.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2322
Bench: 3950249
Author: @nickpelling
We replace in the code the obscure expressions mapping files ABCDEFGH to ABCDDCBA
by an explicite call to an auxiliary function :
old: f = min(f, ~f)
new: f = map_to_queenside(f)
We used the Golbolt web site (https://godbolt.org) to find the optimal code
for the auxiliary function.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 30292 W: 6756 L: 6651 D: 16885
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d8676720ebc5971531d6aa1
No functional change
When scoring the connected pawns, replace the intricate ternary expressions
choosing the coefficient by a simpler addition of boolean conditions:
` value = Connected * (2 + phalanx - opposed) `
This is the map showing the old coefficients and the new ones:
```
phalanx and unopposed: 3x -> 3x
phalanx and opposed: 1.5x -> 2x
not phalanx and unopposed: 2x -> 2x
not phalanx and opposed: 1x -> 1x
```
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 11354 W: 2579 L: 2437 D: 6338
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d8151f00ebc5971531d244f
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 41221 W: 7001 L: 6913 D: 27307
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d818f930ebc5971531d26d6
Bench: 3959889
blah
It seems there is no other way to specify stack size on std::thread than linker
flags and the effective flags are named differently in many toolchains. On
toolchains where pthread is always available, this patch changes the stack
size change in our C++ code via pthread to ensure a minimum stack size of 8MB,
instead of relying on linker defaults which may be platform-specific.
Also raises default stack size on OSX to current Linux default (8MB) just to
be safe.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2303
No functional change
This patch decreases the endgame scale factor using the 50 moves counter.
Looking at some games with this patch, it seems to have two effects on
the playing style:
1) when no progress can be made in late endgames (for instance in fortresses
or opposite bishops endgames) the evaluation will be largely tamed down
towards a draw value.
2) more interestingly, there is also a small effect in the midgame play because
Stockfish will panic a little bit if there are more than four consecutive
shuffling moves with an advantage: the engine will try to move a pawn or to
exchange a piece to keep the advantage, so the follow-ups of the position
will be discovered earlier by the alpha-beta search.
passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 23017 W: 5080 L: 4805 D: 13132
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d7e4aef0ebc59069c36fc74
passed LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 30746 W: 5171 L: 4911 D: 20664
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d7e513d0ebc59069c36ff26
Pull request: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2304
Bench: 4272173
This patch finally introduces something that was tried for years: midgame score
dependance on complexity of position. More precisely, if the position is very
simplified and the complexity measure calculated in the initiative() function
is inferior to -50 by an amount d, then we add this value d to the midgame score.
One example of play of this patch will be (again!) 4 vs 3 etc same flank endgames
where sides have a lot of non-pawn material: 4 vs 3 draw mostly remains the same
draw even if we add a lot of equal material to both sides.
STC run was stopped after 200k games (and not converging):
LLR: -1.75 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 200319 W: 44197 L: 43310 D: 112812
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d7cfdb10ebc5902d386572c
passed LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 41051 W: 6858 L: 6570 D: 27623
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d7d14680ebc5902d3866196
This is the first and not really precise version, a lot of other stuff can be
tried on top of it (separate complexity for middlegame, some more terms, even
simple retuning of values).
Bench: 4248476
Follow-up to previous commit. Update the documentation for the user when using `make`,
to show the preferred bmi2 compile in the advanced examples section.
Note: I made a mistake in the previous commit comment, the documentation is shown when
using `make` or `make help`, not `make --help`.
No functional change
The only change done to the Makefile to get a somewhat faster binary as
discussed in #2291 is to add -msse4 to the compile options of the bmi2 build.
Since all processors supporting bmi2 also support sse4 this can be done easily.
It is a useful step to avoid sending around custom and poorly tested builds.
The speedup isn't enough to pass [0,4] but it is roughly 1.15Elo and a LOS of 90%:
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 93009 W: 20519 L: 20316 D: 52174
Also rewrite the documentation for the user when using `make --help`, so that
the order of architectures for x86-64 has the more performant build one on top.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2300
No functional change
This patch greatly scales down complexity of endgames when the
following conditions are all true together:
- pawns are all on one flank
- stronger side king is not outflanking weaker side
- no passed pawns are present
This should improve stockfish evaluation of obvious draws 4 vs 3, 3 vs 2
and 2 vs 1 pawns in rook/queen/knight/bishop single flank endgames where
strong side can not make progress.
passed STC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 15843 W: 3601 L: 3359 D: 8883
passed LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 121275 W: 20107 L: 19597 D: 81571
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2298
Bench: 3954190
==========================
How to continue from there?
a) This could be a powerful idea for refining some parts of the evaluation
function, a bit like when we try quadratics or other equations to emphasize
certain situations (xoto10).
b) Some other combinaison values for this bonus can be done further, or
overall retuning of weight and offset while keeping the formula simple.
This is a simplification that integrated WeakLever into doubled pawns.
Since we already check for !support for Doubled pawns, it is trivial
to check for weak lever by just checking more_than_one(lever).
We also introduce the Score * bool operation overload to remove some
casts in the code.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 26757 W: 5842 L: 5731 D: 15184
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d77ee220ebc5902d384e5a4
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2295
No functional change
Maintain best move counter at the root and allow there only moves which has a counter
of zero for Late Move Reduction. For compensation only the first three moves are excluded
from Late Move Reduction per default instead the first four moves.
What we can further do:
- here we use a simple counting scheme but perhaps some aging to fade out early iterations
could be helpful
- use the best move counter also at inner nodes for LMR and/or pruning
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 17414 W: 3984 L: 3733 D: 9697
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d6234bb0ebc5939d09f2aa2
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 38058 W: 6448 L: 6166 D: 25444
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d62681a0ebc5939d09f2f27
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2282
Bench: 3568210
Remove one parameter in function evaluate_shelter(), making all
comparisons for castled/uncastled shelter locally in do_king_safety().
Also introduce BlockedStorm penalty.
Passed non-regression test at STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 65864 W: 14630 L: 14596 D: 36638
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d5fc80c0ebc5939d09f0acc
No functional change
@Vizvezdenec array suggested that alternate values may be better than current
master (see pull request #2270 ). I tuned some linear equations to more closely
represent his values and it passed. These futility values seem quite sensitive,
so perhaps additional Elo improvements can be found here.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 12257 W: 2820 L: 2595 D: 6842
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d5b2f360ebc5925cf1111ac
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 20273 W: 3497 L: 3264 D: 13512
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d5c0d250ebc5925cf111ac3
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2272
------------------------------------------
How to continue from there ?
a) we can try a simpler version for the futility margin, this would
be a simplification :
margin = 188 * (depth - improving)
b) on the other direction, we can try a complexification by trying
again to gain Elo with an complete array of futility values.
------------------------------------------
Bench: 4330402
Replace calls to count(key) + operator[key] with a single call to find(key).
Replace the std::map with std::unordered_map which provide O(1) access,
although the map has a really small number of objects.
Test with [0..4] failed yellow:
TC 10+0.1
SPRT elo0: 0.00 alpha: 0.05 elo1: 4.00 beta: 0.05
LLR -2.96 [-2.94,2.94] (rejected)
Elo 1.01 [-0.87,3.08] (95%)
LOS 85.3%
Games 71860 [w:22.3%, l:22.2%, d:55.5%]
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d5432210ebc5925cf109d61
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2269
No functional change
Non functional simplification when we find the passed pawns in pawn.cpp
and some code clean up. It also better follows the pattern "flag the pawn"
and "score the pawn".
-------------------------
The idea behind the third condition for candidate passed pawn is a little
bit difficult to visualize. Just for the record, the idea is the following:
Consider White e5 d4 against black e6. d4 can (in some endgames) push
to d5 and lever e6. Thanks to this sacrifice, or after d5xe6, we consider
e5 as "passed".
However:
- if White e5/d4 against black e6/c6: d4 cannot safely push to d5 since d5 is double attacked;
- if White e5/d4 against black e6/d5: d4 cannot safely push to d5 since it is occupied.
This is exactly what the following expression does:
```
&& (shift<Up>(support) & ~(theirPawns | dblAttackThem)))
```
--------------------------
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d3325bb0ebc5925cf0e6e91
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 124666 W: 27586 L: 27669 D: 69411
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2255
No functional change
This exploits the recent fractional Skill Level, and is a result from some discussion in #2221 and the older #758.
Basically, if UCI_LimitStrength is set, it will internally convert UCI_Elo to a matching fractional Skill Level.
The Elo estimate is based on games at TC 60+0.6, Hash 64Mb, 8moves_v3.pgn, rated with Ordo, anchored to goldfish1.13 (CCRL 40/4 ~2000).
Note that this is mostly about internal consistency, the anchoring to CCRL is a bit weak, e.g. within this tournament,
goldfish and sungorus only have a 200Elo difference, their rating difference on CCRL is 300Elo.
I propose that we continue to expose 'Skill Level' as an UCI option, for backwards compatibility.
The result of a tournament under those conditions are given by the following table, where the player name reflects the UCI_Elo.
# PLAYER : RATING ERROR POINTS PLAYED (%) CFS(%)
1 Elo2837 : 2792.2 50.8 536.5 711 75 100
2 Elo2745 : 2739.0 49.0 487.5 711 69 100
3 Elo2654 : 2666.4 49.2 418.0 711 59 100
4 Elo2562 : 2604.5 38.5 894.5 1383 65 100
5 Elo2471 : 2515.2 38.1 651.5 924 71 100
6 Elo2380 : 2365.9 35.4 478.5 924 52 100
7 Elo2289 : 2290.0 28.0 864.0 1596 54 100
8 sungorus1.4 : 2204.9 27.8 680.5 1596 43 60
9 Elo2197 : 2201.1 30.1 523.5 924 57 100
10 Elo2106 : 2103.8 24.5 730.5 1428 51 100
11 Elo2014 : 2030.5 30.3 377.5 756 50 98
12 goldfish1.13 : 2000.0 ---- 511.0 1428 36 100
13 Elo1923 : 1928.5 30.9 641.5 1260 51 100
14 Elo1831 : 1829.0 42.1 370.5 756 49 100
15 Elo1740 : 1738.3 42.9 277.5 756 37 100
16 Elo1649 : 1625.0 42.1 525.5 1260 42 100
17 Elo1558 : 1521.5 49.9 298.0 756 39 100
18 Elo1467 : 1471.3 51.3 246.5 756 33 100
19 Elo1375 : 1407.1 51.9 183.0 756 24 ---
It can be observed that all set Elos correspond within the error bars with the observed Ordo rating.
No functional change
This is a functional simplification that removes the std::pow from reduction. The resulting reduction values are within 1% of master.
This is a simplification because i believe an fp addition and multiplication is much faster than a call to std::pow() which is historically slow and performance varies widely on different architectures.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 23471 W: 5245 L: 5127 D: 13099
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d27ac1b0ebc5925cf0d476b
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 51533 W: 8736 L: 8665 D: 34132
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d27b74e0ebc5925cf0d493c
Bench 3765158
This is another functional simplification to Stockfish passed pawn evaluation.
Stockfish evaluates some pawns which are not yet passed as "candidate" passed pawns, which are given half the bonus of fully passed ones. Prior to this commit, Stockfish considered a passed pawn to be a "candidate" if (a) it would not be a passed pawn if moved one square forward (the blocking square), or (b) there were other pawns (of either color) in front of it on the file. This latter condition used a fairly complicated method, forward_file_bb; here, rather than inspect the entire forward file, we simply re-use the blocking square. As a result, some pawns previously considered "candidates", but which are able to push forward, no longer have their bonus halved.
Simplification tests passed quickly at both STC and LTC. The results from both tests imply that this simplification is, most likely, additionally a small Elo gain, with a LTC likelihood of superiority of 87 percent.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 12908 W: 2909 L: 2770 D: 7229
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d2a1c880ebc5925cf0d9006
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 20723 W: 3591 L: 3470 D: 13662
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d2a21fd0ebc5925cf0d9118
Bench: 3377831
Current master code made sence when we had 2 types of bonuses for protected path to queen. But it was simplified so we have only one bonus now and code was never cleaned.
This non-functional simplification removes useless defendedsquares bitboard and removes one bitboard assignment (defendedSquares &= attackedBy[Us][ALL_PIECES] + defendedSquares & blockSq becomes just attackedBy[Us][ALL_PIECES] & blockSq also we never assign defendedSquares = squaresToQueen because we don't need it).
So should be small non-functional speedup.
Passed simplification SPRT.
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d2966ef0ebc5925cf0d7659
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 23319 W: 5152 L: 5034 D: 13133
bench 3361902
In Stockfish, both the middlegame and endgame bonus for a passed pawn are calculated as a product of two factors. The first is k, chosen based on the presence of defended and unsafe squares. The second is w, a quadratic function of the pawn's rank. Both are only applied if the pawn's relative rank is at least RANK_4.
It does not appear that the complexity of a quadratic function is necessary for w. Here, we replace it with a simpler linear one, which performs equally at both STC and LTC.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 46814 W: 10386 L: 10314 D: 26114
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d29686e0ebc5925cf0d76a1
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 82372 W: 13845 L: 13823 D: 54704
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d2980650ebc5925cf0d7bfd
Bench: 3328507
We recently added a bonus for double pawn attacks on unsupported enemy pawns,
on June 27. However, it is possible that the unsupported pawn may become a passer
by simply pushing forward out of the double attack. By rewarding double attacks,
we may inadvertently reward the creation of enemy passers, by encouraging both of
our would-be stoppers to attack the enemy pawn even if there is no opposing
friendly pawn on the same file.
Here, we revise this term to exclude passed pawns. In order to simplify the code
with this change included, we non-functionally rewrite Attacked2Unsupported to
be a penalty for enemy attacks on friendly pawns, rather than a bonus for our
attacks on enemy pawns. This allows us to exclude passed pawns with a simple
& ~e->passedPawns[Us], while passedPawns[Them] is not yet defined in this part
of the code.
This dramatically reduces the proportion of positions in which Attacked2Unsupported
is applied, to about a third of the original. To compensate, maintaining the same
average effect across our bench positions, we nearly triple Attacked2Unsupported
from S(0, 20) to S(0, 56). Although this pawn formation is rare, it is worth more
than half a pawn in the endgame!
STC: (stopped automatically by fishtest after 250,000 games)
LLR: -0.87 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 250000 W: 56585 L: 55383 D: 138032
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d25795e0ebc5925cf0cfb51
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 81038 W: 13965 L: 13558 D: 53515
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d25f3920ebc5925cf0d10dd
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2233
Bench: 3765158
PowerPC has had popcount instructions for a long time, at least as far
back as POWER5 (released 2004). Enable them via a gcc builtin.
Using a gcc builtin has the added bonus that if compiled for a processor
that lacks a hardware instruction, gcc will include a software popcount
implementation that does not use the instruction. It might be slower
than the table lookups (or it might be faster) but it will certainly work.
So this isn't going to break anything.
On my POWER8 VM, this leads to a ~4.27% speedup.
Fir prefetch, the gcc builtin generates a 'dcbt' instruction, which is
supported at least as far back as the G5 (2002) and POWER4 (2001).
This leads to a ~5% speedup on my POWER8 VM.
No functional change
The current skill levels (1-20) allow for adjusting playing strengths, but
do so in big steps (e.g. level 10 vs level 11 is a ~143 Elo jump at STC).
Since the 'Skill Level' input can already be a floating point number, this
patch uses the fractional part of the input to provide the user with
fine control, allowing for varying the playing strength essentially
continuously.
The implementation internally still uses integer skill levels (needed since they pick Depths),
but non-deterministically rounds up or down the used skill level such that the average integer
skill corresponds to the input floating point one. As expected, intermediate
(fractional) skill levels yield intermediate playing strenghts.
Tested at STC, playing level 10 against levels between 10 and 11 for 10000 games
level 10.25 ELO: 24.26 +-6.2
level 10.5 ELO: 67.51 +-6.3
level 10.75 ELO: 98.52 +-6.4
level 11 ELO: 143.65 +-6.7
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cd9c6b40ebc5925cf056791http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cd9d22b0ebc5925cf056989http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cd9cf610ebc5925cf056906http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cd9d2490ebc5925cf05698e
No functional change.
Initialization of larger hash sizes can take some time.
Don't include this time in the bench by resetting the timer after Search::clear().
Also move 'ucinewgame' command down in the list, so that it is processed
after the configuration of Threads and Hash size.
No functional change.
This is a functional change that rewards double attacks on an unsupported pawns.
STC (non-functional difference)
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 83276 W: 18981 L: 18398 D: 45897
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d0970500ebc5925cf0a77d4
LTC (incomplete looping version)
LLR: 0.50 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 82999 W: 14244 L: 13978 D: 54777
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d0a8d480ebc5925cf0a8d58
LTC (completed non-looping version).
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 223381 W: 38323 L: 37512 D: 147546
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d0e80510ebc5925cf0ad320
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2205
Bench 3633546
----------------------------------
Comments by Alain SAVARD:
interesting result ! I would have expected that search would resolve such positions
correctly on the very next move. This is not a very common pattern, and when it happens,
it will quickly disappear. So I'm quite surprised that it passed LTC.
I would be even more surprised if this would resist a simplification.
Anyway, let's try to imagine a few cases.
a) If you have White d5 f5 against Black e6, and White to move
last move by Black was probably a capture on e6 and White is about to recapture on e6
b) If you have White d5 f5 against e6, and Black to move
last move by White was possibly a capture on d5 or f5
or the pawn on e6 was pinned or could not move for some reason.
and white wants to blast open the position and just pushed d4-d5 or f4-f5
Some possible follow-ups
a) Motif is so rare that the popcount() can be safely replaced with a bool()
But this would not pass a SPRT[0,4],
So try a simplification with bool() and also without the & ~theirAttacks
b) If it works, we probably can simply have this in the loop
if (lever) score += S(0, 20);
c) remove all this and tweak something in search for pawn captures (priority, SEE, extension,..)
-removes wideUnsafeSquares bitboard
-removes a couple of bitboard operations
-removes one if operator
-updates comments so they actually represent what this part of code is doing now.
passed non-regression STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d0c1ae50ebc5925cf0aa8db
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 16892 W: 3865 L: 3733 D: 9294
No functional change
Use comparison of eval with beta to predict potential cutNodes. This
allows multi-cut pruning to also prune possibly mislabeled Pv and NonPv
nodes.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 54305 W: 12302 L: 11867 D: 30136
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d048ba50ebc5925cf0a15e8
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 189512 W: 32620 L: 31904 D: 124988
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d04bf740ebc5925cf0a17f0
Normally I would think such changes are risky, specially for PvNodes,
but after trying a few other versions, it seems this version is more
sound than I initially thought.
Aside from this, a small funtional change is made to return
singularBeta instead of beta to be more consistent with the fail-soft
logic used in other parts of search.
=============================
How to continue from there ?
We could try to audit other parts of the search where the "cutNode"
variable is used, and try to use dynamic info based on heuristic
eval rather than on this variable, to check if the idea behind this
patch could also be applied successfuly.
Bench: 3503788
Fixes issues #2126 and #2189 where no progress in rootDepth is made for particular fens:
8/8/3P3k/8/1p6/8/1P6/1K3n2 b - - 0 1
8/1r1rp1k1/1b1pPp2/2pP1Pp1/1pP3Pp/pP5P/P5K1/8 w - - 79 46
the cause are the shuffle extensions. Upon closer analysis, it appears that in these cases a shuffle extension is made for every node searched, and progess can not be made. This patch implements a fix, namely to limit the number of extensions relative to the number of nodes searched. The ratio employed is 1/4, which fixes the issues seen so far, but it is a heuristic, and I expect that certain positions might require an even smaller fraction.
The patch was tested as a bug fix and passed:
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 56601 W: 12633 L: 12581 D: 31387
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d02b37a0ebc5925cf09f6da
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 52042 W: 8907 L: 8837 D: 34298
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d0319420ebc5925cf09fe57
Furthermore, to confirm that the shuffle extension in this form indeed still brings Elo, one more test at VLTC was performed:
VLTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 142022 W: 20963 L: 20435 D: 100624
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d03630d0ebc5925cf0a011a
Bench: 3961247
Since root_probe() and root_probe_wdl() do not reset all tbRank values if they fail,
it is necessary to do this in rank_root_move(). This fixes issue #2196.
Alternatively, the loop could be moved into both root_probe() and root_probe_wdl().
No functional change
This is a non-functional simplification.
backmost_sq and frontmost_sq are redundant. It seems quite clear to always use frontmost_sq and use the correct color.
Non functional change.
Increase size of the pawns table by the factor 8. This decreases the number of recalculations of pawn structure information significantly (at least at LTC).
I have done measurements for different depths and pawn cache sizes.
First are given the number of pawn entry calculations are done (in parentheses is the frequency that a call to probe triggers a pawn entry calculation). The delta% are the percentage of less done pawn entry calculations in comparison to master
VSTC: bench 1 1 12
STC: bench 8 1 16
LTC: bench 64 1 20
VLTC: bench 512 1 24
VSTC STC LTC VLTC
master 82218(6%) 548935(6%) 2415422(7%) 9548071(7%)
pawncache*2 79859(6%) 492943(5%) 2084794(6%) 8275206(6%)
pawncache*4 78551(6%) 458758(5%) 1827770(5%) 7112531(5%)
pawncache*8 77963(6%) 439421(4%) 1649169(5%) 6128652(4%)
delta%(p2-m) -2.9% -10.2% -13.7% -13.3%
delta%(p4-m) -4.5% -16.4% -24.3% -25.5%
delta%(p8-m) -5.2% -20.0% -31.7% -35.8%
STC: (non-regression test because at STC the effect is smaller than at LTC)
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 22767 W: 5160 L: 5040 D: 12567
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d00f6040ebc5925cf09c3e2
LTC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 26340 W: 4524 L: 4286 D: 17530
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d00a3810ebc5925cf09ba16
No functional change.
This is a functional simplification. This is NOT the exact version that was tested. Beyond the testing, an assignment was removed and a piece changes for consistency.
Instead of rewarding ANY square past an opponent pawn as an "outpost," only use squares that are protected by our pawn. I believe this is more consistent with what the chess world calls an "outpost."
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 23540 W: 5387 L: 5269 D: 12884
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cf51e6d0ebc5925cf08b823
LTC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 53085 W: 9271 L: 9204 D: 34610
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cf5279e0ebc5925cf08b992
bench 3424592
Stockfish evaluates passed pawns in part based on a variable k, which shapes the passed pawn bonus based on the number of squares between the current square and promotion square that are attacked by enemy pieces, and the number defended by friendly ones. Prior to this commit, we gave a large bonus when all squares between the pawn and the promotion square were defended, and if they were not, a somewhat smaller bonus if at least the pawn's next square was. However, this distinction does not appear to provide any Elo at STC or LTC.
Where do we go from here? Many promising Elo-gaining patches were attempted in the past few months to refine passed pawn calculation, by altering the definitions of unsafe and defended squares. Stockfish uses these definitions to choose the value of k, so those tests interact with this PR. Therefore, it may be worthwhile to retest previously promising but not-quite-passing tests in the vicinity of this patch.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 42344 W: 9455 L: 9374 D: 23515
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cf83ede0ebc5925cf0904fb
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 69548 W: 11855 L: 11813 D: 45880
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cf8698f0ebc5925cf0908c8
Bench: 3854907
This is a non-functional simplification. Since our file_bb handles either Files or Squares, using Square here removes some code. Not likely any performance difference despite the test.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 6081 W: 1444 L: 1291 D: 3346
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ceb3e2e0ebc5925cf07ab03
Non functional change.
We evaluate defended and unsafe squares for a passed pawn push based on friendly and enemy rooks and queens on the passed pawn's file. Prior to this patch, we further required that these rooks and queens be able to directly attack the passed pawn. However, this restriction appears unnecessary and worth almost exactly 0 Elo at LTC.
The simplified code allows rooks and queens to attack/defend the passed pawn through other pieces of either color.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 29019 W: 6488 L: 6381 D: 16150
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cdcf7270ebc5925cf05d30c
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 54224 W: 9200 L: 9133 D: 35891
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cddc6210ebc5925cf05eca3
Bench: 3415326
This is a non-functional simplification that combines vote counting and thread selecting in the same loop.
It is possible that the best thread would be updated more frequently than master, but I'm not sure it matters here. Perhaps "mostVotes" is a better name than "bestVote?"
STC (stopped early).
LLR: 0.70 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 10714 W: 2329 L: 2311 D: 6074
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ccc71470ebc5925cf03d244
No functional change.
Treat all threads the same as main thread and increment
failedHighCnt on fail highs. This makes the search try
again at lower depth.
@vondele suggested also changing the reset of failedHighCnt
when there is a fail low. Tests including this passed so the
branch has been updated to include both changes. failedHighCnt
is now handled exactly the same in helper threads and the main
thread. Thanks vondele :-)
STC @ 5+0.05 th 4 :
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 7769 W: 1704 L: 1557 D: 4508
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c9f19520ebc5925cfffd2a1
LTC @ 20+0.2 th 8 :
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 37888 W: 5983 L: 5889 D: 26016
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c9f57d10ebc5925cfffd696
Bench 3824325
Similar to PSQT we only need one instance of the Endgames resource. The current per thread copies are identical and read only(after initialization) so from a design point of view it doesn't make sense to have them.
Tested for no slowdown.
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c94377a0ebc5925cfff43ca
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17320 W: 3487 L: 3359 D: 10474
No functional change.
Store repetition info in StateInfo instead of recomputing it in
three different places. This saves some work in has_game_cycle()
where this info is needed for positions before the root.
Tested for non-regression at STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 34104 W: 7586 L: 7489 D: 19029
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cd0676e0ebc5925cf044b56
No functional change.
High rootDepths, selDepths and generally searches are increasingly
common with long time control games, analysis, and improving hardware.
In this case, depths of MAX_DEPTH/MAX_PLY (128) can be reached,
and the search tree is truncated.
In principle MAX_PLY can be easily increased, except for a technicality
of storing depths in a signed 8 bit int in the TT. This patch increases
MAX_PLY by storing the depth in an unsigned 8 bit, after shifting by the
most negative depth stored in TT (DEPTH_NONE).
No regression at STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 42235 W: 9565 L: 9484 D: 23186
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cdb35360ebc5925cf0595e1
Verified to reach high depths on
k1b5/1p1p4/pP1Pp3/K2pPp2/1P1p1P2/3P1P2/5P2/8 w - -
info depth 142 seldepth 154 multipv 1 score cp 537 nodes 26740713110 ...
No bench change.
This functional simplification removes the PvNode reduction and adjusts
the ttPv lmr condition accordingly. Their definitions only differ by the
inclusions of ttPv. Aside from this, shallow move pruning definition
will be the only other functional difference, but this does not seem to
matter too much.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 58908 W: 12980 L: 12932 D: 32996
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cd1aaaa0ebc5925cf046c6a
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 20351 W: 3521 L: 3399 D: 13431
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cd23fa70ebc5925cf047cd2
Bench: 3687854
In master search() may incorrectly return a draw score in the following
corner case: there was a 2-fold repetition during the game, and the
current position can be reached by a move from a repeated one. This case
is treated as an upcoming 3-fold repetition, which it is not.
Here is a testcase demonstrating the issue (note that the moves
after FEN are required). The input:
position fen 8/8/8/8/8/8/p7/2k4K b - - 0 1 moves c1b1 h1g1 b1c1 g1h1 c1b1 h1g1 b1a1 g1h1
go movetime 1000
produces the output:
[...]
info depth 127 seldepth 2 multipv 1 score cp 0 [...]
bestmove a1b1
saying that the game will be drawn by repetion. However the other possible
move for black, Kb2, avoids repetitions and wins. The patch fixes this behavior.
In particular it finds mate in 10 in the above position.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 10604 W: 2390 L: 2247 D: 5967
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cb373e00ebc5925cf0167bf
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 19620 W: 3308 L: 3185 D: 13127
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cb3822f0ebc5925cf016b2d
Bench is not changed since it does not test positions with history of moves.
Bench: 3184182
only the extension part of the shuffle patch is sufficient to
pass [0,3.5] bounds at VLTC as shown by two more tests.
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cc168bc0ebc5925cf02bda8
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 120684 W: 17875 L: 17400 D: 85409
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cc14d510ebc5925cf02bcb5
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 68415 W: 10250 L: 9905 D: 48260
this patch proposes to simplify back to this basic and easier to
understand version. In case there is a need to run a [-3, 1] VLTC on
this one, it can be done, but it is resource intensive, and not needed
IMO.
Bench: 3388643
Same idea as fisherman's knight protection.
passed STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 17133 W: 3952 L: 3701 D: 9480
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cc3550b0ebc5925cf02dada
passed LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 37316 W: 6470 L: 6188 D: 24658
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cc3721d0ebc5925cf02dc90
Looking at this 2 ideas being recent clean elo gainers I have a feeling that we can add also rook and queen protection bonuses or overall move this stuff in pieces loop in the same way as we do pieces attacking bonuses on their kingring... :) Thx fisherman for original idea.
Bench 3429173
Only called with Squares as argument, so remove unused variants.
As this is just syntax changes, only verified bench at high depth.
No functional change.
The "move" class variable is Movepick is removed (removes some abstraction) which saves a few assignment operations, and the effects of "filter" is limited to the current move (movePtr). The resulting code is a bit more verbose, but it is also more clear what is going on. This version is NOT tested, but is substantially similar to:
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 29191 W: 6474 L: 6367 D: 16350
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ca7aab50ebc5925cf006e50
This is a non-functional simplification.
We can remove the values in Pawns if we just use the piece arrays in Position. This reduces the size of a pawn entry. This simplification passed individually, and in concert with ps_passedcount100 (removes passedCount storage in pawns.).
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 19957 W: 4529 L: 4404 D: 11024
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cb3c2d00ebc5925cf016f0d
Combo STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17368 W: 3925 L: 3795 D: 9648
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cb3d3510ebc5925cf01709a
This is a non-functional simplification.
It causes a serious regression hanging a simple fixed
depth search. Reproducible with:
position fen q1B5/1P1q4/8/8/8/6R1/8/1K1k4 w - - 0 1
go depth 13
The reason is a search tree explosion due to:
if (... && depth < 3 * ONE_PLY)
extension = ONE_PLY;
This is very dangerous code by itself because triggers **at the leafs**
and in the above position keeps extending endlessly. In normal games
time deadline makes the search to stop sooner or later, but in fixed
seacrch we just hang possibly for a very long time. This is not acceptable
because 'go depth 13' shall not be a surprise for any position.
This patch reverts commit 76f1807baa.
and fixes the issue https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/2091
Bench: 3243738
Introduce a new search extension when pushing an advanced passed pawn is
also suggested by the first killer move. There have been previous tests
which have similar ideas, mostly about pawn pushes, but it seems to be
overkill to extend too many moves. My idea is to limit the extension to
when a move happens to be noteworthy in some other way as well, such as
in this case, when it is also a killer move.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 19027 W: 4326 L: 4067 D: 10634
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cac2cde0ebc5925cf00c36d
LTC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 93390 W: 15995 L: 15555 D: 61840
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cac42270ebc5925cf00c4b9
For future tests, it looks like this will interact heavily with passed
pawn evaluation. It may be good to try more variants of some of the more
promising evaluations tests/tweaks.
Bench: 3666092
Instead of looping through kfrom,kto, rfrom, rto, we can use BetweenBB. This is less lines of code and it is more clear what castlingPath actually is. Personal benchmarks are all over the place. However, this code is only executed when loading a position, so performance doesn't seem that relevant.
No functional change.
The kingDanger term is intended to give a penalty which increases rapidly in the middlegame but less so in the endgame. To this end, the middlegame component is quadratic, and the endgame component is linear. However, this produces unintended consequences for relatively small values of kingDanger: the endgame penalty will exceed the middlegame penalty. This remains true up to kingDanger = 256 (a S(16, 16) penalty), so some of these inaccurate penalties are actually rather large.
In this patch, we increase the threshold for applying the kingDanger penalty to eliminate some of this unintended behavior. This was very nearly, but not quite, sufficient to pass on its own. The patch was finally successful by integrating a second kingDanger tweak by @Vizvezdenec, increasing the kingDanger constant term slightly and improving both STC and LTC performance.
Where do we go from here? I propose that in the future, any attempts to tune kingDanger coefficients should also consider tuning the kingDanger threshold. The evidence shows clearly that it should not be automatically taken to be zero.
Special thanks to @Vizvezdenec for the kingDanger constant tweak. Thanks also to all the approvers and CPU donors who made this possible!
STC:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 141225 W: 31239 L: 30846 D: 79140
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cabbdb20ebc5925cf00b86c
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 30708 W: 5296 L: 5043 D: 20369
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5cabff760ebc5925cf00c22d
Bench: 3445945
The sed command is a bit different in Mac OS X (why not!).
The ‘-i’ option required a parameter to tell what extension to add for the
backup file. To fix it, just add extension for backup file, for example ‘.bak’
Fix broken Trevis CI test
No functional change.
The current update only by main thread depends on the luck of
whether main thread sees any/many changes to the best move or not.
It then makes large, lumpy changes to the time to be
used (1x, 2x, 3x, etc) depending on that sample of 1.
Use the average across all threads to get a more reliable
number with a smoother distribution.
STC @ 5+0.05 th 4 :
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 51899 W: 11446 L: 11029 D: 29424
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ca32ff20ebc5925cf0016fb
STC @ 5+0.05 th 8 :
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 13851 W: 2843 L: 2620 D: 8388
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ca35ae00ebc5925cf001adb
LTC @ 20+0.2 th 8 :
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 48527 W: 7941 L: 7635 D: 32951
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ca37cb70ebc5925cf001cec
Further work:
Similar changes might be possible for the fallingEval and timeReduction calculations (and elsewhere?), using either the min, average or max values across all threads.
Bench 3506898
Simplification which removes the pawns connected array.
Instead of storing the values in an array, the values are
calculated real-time. This is about 1.6% faster on my machines.
Performance:
master ave nps: 159,248,672
patch ave nps: 161,905,592
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 20363 W: 4579 L: 4455 D: 11329
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c9925ba0ebc5925cfff79a6
Non functional change.
Shuffle detection procedure :
Shuffling positions are detected if
the last 36 moves are reversible (rule50_count() > 36),
the position have been already in the TT,
there is a still a pawn on the board (to avoid special endings like KBN vs K).
The position is then judged as a draw.
An extension is realized if we already made 14 successive reversible moves in PV to accelerate the detection of the eventual draw.
To go further : we can still improve the idea. The length of the tests need a lot of ressources.
the limit of 36 is logic but must be checked again for special zugzwang positions,
this limit can be decreased in special positions,
the limit of 14 moves for extension has not been tuned.
STC
LLR: -2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 32595 W: 7273 L: 7275 D: 18047 Elo +0.43
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c90aa330ebc5925cfff1768
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 51249 W: 8807 L: 8486 D: 33956 Elo +1.85
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c90b2450ebc5925cfff1800
VLTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 137974 W: 20503 L: 19983 D: 97488 Elo +1.05
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c9243a90ebc5925cfff2a93
Bench: 3548313
Adding a clamp function makes some of these range limitations a bit prettier and removes some #include's.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28117 W: 6300 L: 6191 D: 15626
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c9aa1df0ebc5925cfff8fcc
Non functional change.
always use the implementation of gives_check in position, no need to
hand-inline part of the implementation in search.
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 57895 W: 12632 L: 12582 D: 32681
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c9eaa4b0ebc5925cfffc9e3
No functional change.
This is a non-functional code style change.
If we add an accessor function for SquareBB we can consolidate all of the asserts. This is also a bit cleaner because all SquareBB accesses go through this method making future changes easier to manage.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 63406 W: 14084 L: 14045 D: 35277
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c9ea6100ebc5925cfffc9af
No functional change.
This is covered by the line just before. If we would like to protect
against the piece value of e.g. a N == B, this could be done by an
assert, no need to do this at runtime.
No functional change.
This is a non-functional simplification/speedup.
The truth-table for popcount(support) >= popcount(lever) - 1 is:
------------------lever
------------------0-------1---------2
support--0------X-------X---------0
-----------1------X-------X---------X
-----------2------X-------X---------X
Thus, it is functionally equivalent to just do: support || !more_than_one(lever) which removes the expensive popcounts and the -1.
Result of 20 runs:
base (...h_master.exe) = 1451680 +/- 8202
test (./stockfish ) = 1454781 +/- 8604
diff = +3101 +/- 931
STC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 35424 W: 7768 L: 7674 D: 19982
Http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c970f170ebc5925cfff5e28
No functional change.
While looking at pruning using see_ge() (which is very valuable)
it became apparent that the !extension test is not adding any
value - simplify it away.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 56843 W: 12621 L: 12569 D: 31653
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c8588cb0ebc5925cffe77f4
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 78622 W: 13223 L: 13195 D: 52204
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c8611cc0ebc5925cffe7f86
Further work could be to optimize the remaining see_ge() test. The idea of less pruning at higher depths is valuable, but perhaps the test (-PawnValueEg * depth) can be improved.
Bench: 3188688
On OS X threads other than the main thread are created with a reduced stack
size of 512KB by default, this is dangerously low for deep searches, so
adjust it to TH_STACK_SIZE. The implementation calls pthread_create() with
proper stack size parameter.
Verified for no regression at STC enabling the patch on all platforms where
pthread is supported.
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 50873 W: 9768 L: 9700 D: 31405
No functional change.
This is a non-functional simplification / code-style change.
This popcount16 method does nothing but initialize the PopCnt16 arrays.
This can be done in a single bitset line, which is less lines and more clear. Performance for this code is moot.
No functional change.
This is a functional simplification that removes the FutilityMoveCounts array with a simple equation using only ints.
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 14175 W: 3123 L: 2987 D: 8065
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 9900 W: 1735 L: 1597 D: 6568
Bench: 3380343
This is a non-functional patch which shrinks the reductions array.
This saves about 8Kb of memory.
The only slow part of master's reductions array is the calculation
of the log values, so using a separate array for those values and
calculating the rest real-time appears to be just as fast as master.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 63245 W: 13906 L: 13866 D: 35473
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c7b571f0ebc5925cffdc104
No funcional change.
This removes the skipQuiets variable, as was done in an earlier round by
@protonspring, but fixes an oversight which led to wrong mate
announcements. Quiets can only be pruned when there is no mate score, so
set moveCountPruning at the right spot.
tested as a fix at STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 66321 W: 14690 L: 14657 D: 36974
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c74f3170ebc5925cffd4b3c
and as the full patch at LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 25903 W: 4341 L: 4228 D: 17334
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c7540030ebc5925cffd506f
Bench: 3292342
This is a somewhat different patch. It fixes blindspots for
two knights vs pawn endgame.
With local testing starting from random KNNvKP positions where the
pawn has not advanced beyond the 4th rank (thanks @protonspring !)
at 15+0.15 (4 cores), this went +105=868-27 against master. All except
two losses were won in reverse.
The heuristic is simple but effective - the strategy in these endgames
is to push the opposing king to the corner, then move the knight that's
blocking the pawn in for the checkmate while the pawn is free to move
and prevents stalemate. This patch gives SF the little boost it needs
to search the relevant king-cornering mating lines.
See the discussion in pull request 1939 for some more good results for
this test in independant tests:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1939
Bench: 3310239
This is a functional simplification of the Outposts array
moving it to a single value. This is a duplicate PR because
I couldn't figure out how to fix the original one.
The idea is from @31m059 with formatting recommendations by @snicolet.
See #1940 for additional information.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 23933 W: 5279 L: 5162 D: 13492
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c3575800ebc596a450c5ecb
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 41718 W: 6919 L: 6831 D: 27968
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c358c440ebc596a450c6117
bench 3783543
This is non-functional. These 5 arrays are simple enough to calculate real-time and maintaining an array for them does not help. Decreases the memory footprint.
This seems a tiny bit slower on my machine, but passed STC well enough. Could someone verify speed?
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 44745 W: 9780 L: 9704 D: 25261
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c47aa2d0ebc5902bca13fc4
The slowdown is minimal even in 32 bit case (thanks to @mstembera for testing):
Compiled using make build ARCH=x86-32 CXX=i686-w64-mingw32-c++ and benched
This patch only:
```
Results for 40 tests for each version:
Base Test Diff
Mean 1455204 1450033 5171
StDev 49452 34533 59621
p-value: 0.465
speedup: -0.004
```
No functional change.
A simple idea, but it makes sense: in current master the search is extended
for checks that are considered somewhat safe, and for for this we use the
static exchange evaluation which only considers the `to_sq` of a move.
This is not reliable for discovered checks, where another piece is giving
the check and is arguably a more dangerous type of check. Thus, if the check
is a discovered check, the result of SEE is not relevant and can be ignored.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 29370 W: 6583 L: 6274 D: 16513
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c5062950ebc593af5d4d9b5
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 227341 W: 37972 L: 37165 D: 152204
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c5094fb0ebc593af5d4dc2c
Bench: 3611854
There was a simplification attempt last week for the tropism
term in king danger, which passed STC but failed LTC. This
was an indirect sign that maybe the tropism factor was sightly
untuned in current master, so we tried to change it from 1/4
to 5/16.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 28098 W: 6264 L: 5990 D: 15844
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c518db60ebc593af5d4e306
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 103709 W: 17387 L: 16923 D: 69399
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c52a5510ebc592fc7baea8b
Bench: 4016000
Remove overlapping safe checks from kingdanger:
- rook and queen checks from the same square: rook check is preferred
- bishop and queen checks form the same square: queen check is preferred
Increase bishop and rook check values as a compensation.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 27480 W: 6111 L: 5813 D: 15556
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c521d050ebc593af5d4e66a
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 78500 W: 13145 L: 12752 D: 52603
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c52b9460ebc592fc7baecc5
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1983
------------------------------------------
I have quite a few ideas of how to improve this patch.
- actually rethinking it now it will maybe be useful to discount
queen/bishop checks if there is only one square that they can
give check from and it's "occupied" by more valuable check. Right
now count of this squares does not really matter.
- maybe some small extra bonus can be given for overlapping checks.
- some ideas about using popcount() on safechecks can be retried.
- tune this safecheck values since they were more or less randomly handcrafted in this patch.
Bench: 3216489
This patch removes line 875 of search.cpp, which was updating pvHit after IID.
Bench testing at depth 22 shows that line 875 of search.cpp never changes the
value of pvHit at NonPV nodes, while at PV nodes it often changes the value
from true to false (and never the reverse). This is because the definition of
pvHit at line 642 is :
```
pvHit = (ttHit && tte->pv_hit()) || (PvNode && depth > 4 * ONE_PLY);
```
while the assignment after IID omits the ` (PvNode && depth > 4 * ONE_PLY) `
condition. As such, unlike the other two post-IID tte reads, this line of code
does not make SF's state more consistent, but rather introduces an inconsistency
in the definition of pvHit. Indeed, changing line 875 read
```
pvHit = (ttHit && tte->pv_hit()) || (PvNode && depth > 4 * ONE_PLY);
```
to match line 642 is functionally equivalent to removing the line entirely, as
this patch does.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 62756 W: 13787 L: 13746 D: 35223
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c446c850ebc5902bb5d4b75
LTC
LLR: 3.19 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 61900 W: 10179 L: 10111 D: 41610
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c45bf610ebc5902bb5d5d62
Bench: 3796134
This changes 2 parts with regards to static exchange evaluation.
Currently, we do not allow pinned pieces to recapture if *all* opponent
pinners are still in their starting squares. This changes that to having
a less strict requirement, checking if *any* pinners are still in their
starting square. This makes our SEE give more respect to the pinning
side with regards to exchanges, which makes sense because it helps our
search explore more tactical options.
Furthermore, we change the logic for saving pinners into our state
variable when computing slider_blockers. We will include double pinners,
where two sliders may be looking at the same blocker, a similar concept
to our mobility calculation for sliders in our evaluation section.
Interestingly, I think SEE is the only place where the pinners bitboard
is actually used, so as far as I know there are no other side effects
to this change.
An example and some insights:
White Bf2, Kg1
Black Qe3, Bc5
The move Qg3 will be given the correct value of 0. (Previously < 0)
The move Qd4 will be incorrectly given a value of 0. (Previously < 0)
It seems the tradeoff in search is worth it. Qd4 will likely be pruned
soon by something like probcut anyway, while Qg3 could help us spot
tactics at an earlier depth.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 62162 W: 13879 L: 13408 D: 34875
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c4ba1a70ebc593af5d49c55
LTC: (Thanks to @alayant)
LLR: 3.40 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 140285 W: 23416 L: 22825 D: 94044
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c4bcfba0ebc593af5d49ea8
Bench: 3937213
This patch saves (4-1) * 64 * 64 = 12KiB of cache.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 176120 W: 38944 L: 38087 D: 99089
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c4c9f840ebc593af5d4a7ce
LTC
As a pure speed up, I've been informed it should not require LTC.
No functional change
stopOnPonderhit is used to stop search quickly on a ponderhit. It is set by mainThread as part of its time management. However, master employs it as a signal between mainThread and the UCI thread. This is not necessary, it is sufficient for the UCI thread to signal that pondering finished, and mainThread should do its usual time-keeping job, and in this case stop immediately.
This patch implements this, removing stopOnPonderHit as an atomic variable from the ThreadPool,
and moving it as a normal variable to mainThread, reducing its scope. In MainThread::check_time() the search is stopped immediately if ponder switches to false, and the variable stopOnPonderHit is set.
Furthermore, ponder has been moved to mainThread, as the variable is only used to exchange signals between the UCI thread and mainThread.
The version has been tested locally (as fishtest doesn't support ponder):
Score of ponderSimp vs master: 2616 - 2528 - 8630 [0.503] 13774
Elo difference: 2.22 +/- 3.54
which indicates no regression.
No functional change.
Small changes in initiative(). For Pawn PSQT, endgame values for d6-e6 and d7-e7 are now symmetric. The MG value of d2 is now smaller than e2 (d2=13, e2=21 now compared to d2=19, e2=16 before). The MG values of h5-h6-h7 also increased so this might encourage stockfish for more h-pawn pushes.
STC
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 81141 W: 17933 L: 17777 D: 45431
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c4017350ebc5902bb5cf237
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 83078 W: 13883 L: 13466 D: 55729
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c40763f0ebc5902bb5cff09
Bench: 3266398
This is a non-functional simplification that removes the AdjacentFiles array.
This array is simple enough to calculate that the pre-calculated array provides
no benefit. Reduces the memory footprint.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 74839 W: 16390 L: 16373 D: 42076
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c3d75920ebc596a450cfb67
No functionnal change
If we define dcCandidates with & pawnsNotOn7,
we don't have to & it both times.
This seems more clear to me as well.
Tested for no regression.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 44042 W: 9663 L: 9585 D: 24794
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c21d9120ebc5902ba12e84d
No functional change.
The new form is likely to trigger a bit more at LTC. Given that LTC
appears to be an improvement, I think that is fine.
The change is not very invasive: it does the same as before, use
potentially less time for moves that are very stable. Most of the
time, the full bonus was given if the bonus was given, so the gradual
part {3, 4, 5} didn't matter much. Whereas previously 'stable' was
expressed as the last 80% of iterations are the same, now I use a
fixed depth (10 iterations). For TCEC style TC, it will presumably
imply some more moves that are played quicker (and thus more time
on the clock when it potentially matters). Note that 10 iterations
of stability means we've been proposing that move for 99.9% of search
time.
passed STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c30d2290ebc596a450c055b
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 70921 W: 15403 L: 15378 D: 40140
passed LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c31ae240ebc596a450c1881
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17422 W: 2968 L: 2842 D: 11612
No functional change.
Introducing new concept, saving principal lines into the transposition table
to generate a "critical search tree" which we can reuse later for intelligent
pruning/extension decisions.
For instance in this patch we just reduce reduction for these lines. But a lot
of other ideas are possible.
To go further : tune some parameters, how to add or remove lines from the
critical search tree, how to use these lines in search choices, etc.
STC :
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 59761 W: 13321 L: 12863 D: 33577 +2.23 ELO
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c34da5d0ebc596a450c53d3
LTC :
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 26826 W: 4439 L: 4191 D: 18196 +2.9 ELO
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c35ceb00ebc596a450c65b2
Special thanks to Miguel Lahoz for his help in transposition table in/out.
Bench: 3399866
This was inspired after reading about
[Multi-Cut](https://www.chessprogramming.org/Multi-Cut).
We now do non-singular cut node pruning. The idea is to prune when we
have a "backup plan" in case our expected fail high node does not fail
high on the ttMove.
For singular extensions, we do a search on all other moves but the
ttMove. If this fails high on our original beta, this means that both
the ttMove, as well as at least one other move was proven to fail high
on a lower depth search. We then assume that one of these moves will
work on a higher depth and prune.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 72952 W: 16104 L: 15583 D: 41265
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c3119640ebc596a450c0be5
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50]
Total: 27103 W: 4564 L: 4314 D: 18225
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c3184c00ebc596a450c1662
Bench: 3145487
This addresses partially issue #1911 in that it documents in our
Readme the command that users can use to verifying the md5sum of
their downloaded tablebase files.
Additionally, a quick check of the file size (the size of each
tablebase file modulo 64 is 16 as pointed out by @syzygy1) has been
implemented at launch time in Stockfish.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1927
and https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/1911
No functional change.
Delay legality check of castling moves at search time,
just before making the move, as is the standard with all
the other move types.
This should avoid an useless and not trivial legality check
when the castling is then not tried later. For instance due
to a previous cut-off.
The patch is also a big simplification and allows to entirely
remove generate_castling()
Bench changes due to a different move sequence out of MovePicker.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 45073 W: 9918 L: 9843 D: 25312
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c2f176f0ebc596a450bdfb3
LTC:
LLR: 3.15 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 10156 W: 1707 L: 1560 D: 6889
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c2e7dfd0ebc596a450bcdf4
Verified with perft both in standard and Chess960 cases.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1929
Bench: 3559104
A single popcount in evaluate.cpp replaces all openFiles stuff in pawns. It doesn't seem to affect performance at all.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28103 W: 6134 L: 6025 D: 15944
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b7d70a20ebc5902bdbb1999
No functional change.
This custom predicate filter creates an unnecessary abstraction layer, but doesn't make the code any more readable. The code is clear enough without it.
No functional change.
The extra condition is used as a shortcut to skip the following 3 assignments:
```C++
Bitboard b1 = shift<UpRight>(pawnsOn7) & enemies;
Bitboard b2 = shift<UpLeft >(pawnsOn7) & enemies;
Bitboard b3 = shift<Up >(pawnsOn7) & emptySquares;
```
In case of EVASION with no target on 8th rank (the common case), we end up performing the 3 statements for nothing because b1 = b2 = b3 = 0.
But this is just a small micro-optimization and the condition is quite confusing, so just remove it and prefer a readable code instead.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 78020 W: 16978 L: 16967 D: 44075
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c27b4fe0ebc5902ba135bb0
No functional change.
I tried to improve the Readme because many people in my local
chess club do not understand some of the UCO options properly.
Starting point of this was Cfish's Readme by Ronald de Man,
some internet resources and the Stockfish code itself.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1898
Initial commit by user @erbsenzaehler, with help from users
Adrian Petrescu, @alayan-stk-2 and Elvin Liu.
No functional change
Co-Authored-By: Alayan-stk-2 <alayan-stk-2@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-Authored-By: Adrian Petrescu <apetresc@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Elvin Liu <solarlight2@users.noreply.github.com>
Recent tests by @xoto10, @Vizvezdenec, and myself seemed to hint that Elo could
be gained by expanding the number of cases where king safety is applied. Several
users (@Spliffjiffer, @Vizvezdenec) have anticipated benefits specifically in
evaluation of tactics. It appears that we actually do not need to restrict the
cases in which we initialize and evaluate king safety at all: initializing and
evaluating it in every position appears roughly Elo-neutral at STC and possibly
a substantial Elo gain at LTC.
Any explanation for this scaling is, at this point, conjecture. Assuming it is
not due to chance, my hypothesis is that initialization of king safety in all
positions is a mild slowdown, offset by an Elo gain of evaluating king safety
in all positions. At STC this produces Elo gains and losses that offset each
other, while at longer time control the slowdown is much less important, leaving
only the Elo gain. It probably helps SF to explore king attacks much earlier in
search with high numbers of enemy pieces concentrating but not essentially attacking
king ring.
Thanks to @xoto10 and @Vizvezdenec for helping run my LTC!
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1906
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 35432 W: 7815 L: 7721 D: 19896
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c24779d0ebc5902ba131b26
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 12887 W: 2217 L: 2084 D: 8586
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c25049a0ebc5902ba132586
Bench: 3163951
------------------
How to continue from there?
* Next step will be to tune all the king danger terms once more after that :-)
When iterating through 'SYSTEM_LOGICAL_PROCESSOR_INFORMATION_EX' structure, do not use structure member beyond known size.
API is guaranteed to provide us at lease one element upon successful, and no element in the structure can have a zero size.
No functional change.
This pull request fixes a rare crashing bug on Windows inside our NUMA code, first
reported by Dann Corbit in the following forum thread (thanks!):
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/fishcooking/gA6aoMEuOwg
The fix is to not use structure member beyond known size when iterating through
'SYSTEM_LOGICAL_PROCESSOR_INFORMATION_EX' structure. We note that the Microsoft
API is guaranteed to provide us at least one element upon successful, and no
element in the structure can have a zero size.
No functional change.
The `&& (ss-1)->killers[0] ` conditions are there seemingly to protect
accessing ss-5.
This is unneeded and not so intuitive (as the killer is checked for equality
with currentMove, and that one is non-zero once we're high enough in the stack,
this protects access to ss-5). We can just extend the stack from ss-4 to ss-5,
so we can call update_continuation_histories(ss-1, ..) always in search.
This goes a bit further than #1881 and addresses a comment in #1878.
passed STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c1aa8d50ebc5902ba127ad0
LLR: 3.12 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 53515 W: 11734 L: 11666 D: 30115
passed LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c1b272c0ebc5902ba12858d
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 140176 W: 23123 L: 23192 D: 93861
Bench: 3451321
Even when playing without endgame table bases, this particular endgame should
be a win 100% of the time when Stockfish is given a KRBK position, assuming
there are enough moves remaining in the FEN to finish the game without hitting
the 50 move rule.
PROBLEM: The issue with master here is that the PushClose difference per square
is 20, however, the difference in squares for the PushToCorners array is usually
less. Thus, the engine prefers to move the kings closer together rather than pushing
the weak king to the correct corner.
What happens is if the weak king is in a safe corner, SF still prefers pushing the
kings together. Occasionally, the strong king traps the weak king in the safe corner.
It takes a while for SF to figure it out, but often draws the game by the 50 move rule
(on shorter time controls).
This patch increases the PushToCorners values to correct this problem. We also added
an assert to catch any overflow problem if anybody would want to increase the array
values again in the future.
It was tested in a couple of matches starting with random KRBK positions and showed
increased winning rates, see https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1877
No functional change
* Update our continuous integration machinery
Ubuntu 16.04 can now be used with travis. Updating all the other stuff
when there.
Invoking the lld linker seems to save 5 minutes with clang on linux.
No functional change.
* fix
* Use a bit less code to calculate hashfull(). Change post increment to preincrement as is more standard
in the rest of stockfish. Scale result so we report 100% instead of 99.9% when completely full.
No functional change.
Although this is a compile-time constant, we stick the castlingSide into a CastlingRight, then pull it out again. This seems unecessarily complex.
No functional change.
We do not need to change the winnerKSq variable, so we can simplify
a little bit the logic of the code by changing only the loserKSq
variable when it is necessary. Also consolidate and clarify comments.
See the pull request thread for a proof that the code is correct:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1854
No functional change
~stronglyProtected is quite similar to ~attackedBy[Them][PAWN] & ~attackedBy2[Them],
the only difference appears to be that the former includes squares attacked twice
by both sides. The resulting logic is simpler, and the change appears to be at least
Elo-neutral at both STC and LTC.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 35924 W: 7978 L: 7885 D: 20061
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c14a5c00ebc5902ba11ed72
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 37078 W: 6125 L: 6030 D: 24923
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c14ae880ebc5902ba11eed8
Bench: 3646542
this patch fixes a rare but reproducible segfault observed playing a
multi-threaded match, it is discussed somewhat in fishcooking.
From the core file, it could be observed that the issue was in qsearch, namely:
````
ss->pv[0] = MOVE_NONE;
````
and the backtrace shows the it arrives there via razoring, called from the rootNode:
````
(gdb) bt
alpha=-19, beta=682, depth=DEPTH_ZERO) at search.cpp:1247
````
Indeed, ss->pv can indeed by a nullptr at the rootNode. However, why is the
segfault so rare ?
The reason is that the condition that guards razoring:
````
(depth < 2 * ONE_PLY && eval <= alpha - RazorMargin)
````
is almost never true, since at the root alpha for depth < 5 is -VALUE_INFINITE.
Nevertheless with the new failHigh scheme, this is not guaranteed, and rootDepth > 5,
can still result in a depth < 2 search at the rootNode. If now another thread,
via the hash, writes a new low eval to the rootPos qsearch can be entered.
Rare but not unseen... I assume that some of the crashes in fishtest recently
might be due to this.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1860
No functional change
As noticed in the forum, a crash in extract_ponder_from_tt could result
if hash size is set before the ponder move is printed. While it is arguably
a GUI issue (but it got me on the cli), it is easy to avoid this issue.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1856
No functional change.
On November 30th, @xoto10 experimented with removing this threshold,
but the simplification barely failed LTC. I was inspired to try various
[0, 4] tweaks to increase its value, which would narrow the effects of
this threshold without removing it entirely. Various values repeatedly
led to Elo gains at both STC and LTC, most of which were insufficient
to pass.
After a couple of weeks, I tried again to find an Elo-gaining tweak
but noticed that I could raise the threshold higher and higher without
regression. I decided to try removing it entirely--forgetting that
@xoto10 had already attempted this. However, this now performs much
better at both STC and LTC, producing a STC Elo gain and also potentially
a smaller LTC one.
The reason appears to be a recent change in master (e8ffca3) near
this code, which interacts with this patch. This simplification
governs the conditions under which that patch's effects are applied.
Something non-obvious about that change has significantly improved
the performance of this simplification.
I recognize and thank @xoto10, who originally had this idea. Since
I ran several LTCs recently (to determine whether to open this PR,
or one for a related [0, 4]), I would also like to acknowledge the
other developers and CPU donors for their patience. Thank you all!
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 13445 W: 3000 L: 2862 D: 7583
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c11f01b0ebc5902ba11a6b8
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 33868 W: 5663 L: 5563 D: 22642
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c11ffe90ebc5902ba11a8a9
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1870
Bench: 3343286
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 13323 W: 3015 L: 2818 D: 7490
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c00a2520ebc5902bcedd41b
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 52294 W: 9093 L: 8756 D:34445
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c00b2c40ebc5902bcedd596
Some obvious followups to this are to further tune this PSQT, or
try 8x8 for other pieces. As of now I don't plan on trying this
for other pieces as I think the majority of the ELO it brings is
for pawns and kings.
Looking at the new values, the differences between kingside and
queenside are quite significant. I am very hopeful that this a
llows SF to understand and plan pawn structures even better than
it already does. Cheers!
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1839
Bench: 3569243
I've gone through the RENAME/REFORMATTING thread and changed everything I could find, plus a few more. With this, let's close the previous issue and open another.
No functional change.
This reverts commit 33d9548218 ,
which crashed in DEBUG mode because of the following assert in position.h
````
Assertion failed: (is_ok(m)), function capture, file ./position.h, line 369.
````
No functional change
Remove the F[] array which I find unhelpful and rename `improvingFactor` to
`fallingEval` since larger values indicate a falling eval and more time use.
I realise a test was not strictly necessary, but I ran STC [-3,1] just to
check there are no foolish errors before creating the pull request:
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 35804 W: 7753 L: 7659 D: 20392
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bef3a0c0ebc595e0ae39c19
It was then suggested to clean the constants around `fallingEval`
to make it more clear this is a factor around ~1 that adjusts time
up or downwards depending on some conditions. We then ran a double
test with this simplification suggestion:
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 68435 W: 14936 L: 14906 D: 38593
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c02c56b0ebc5902bcee0184
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 37258 W: 6324 L: 6230 D: 24704
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c030a520ebc5902bcee0a32
No functional change
Exclude doubly protected by pawns squares when calculating attackers on
king ring. Idea of this patch is not to count attackers if they attack
only squares that are protected by two pawns.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 70040 W: 15476 L: 15002 D: 39562
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c0354860ebc5902bcee1106
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 16530 W: 2795 L: 2607 D: 11128
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c0385080ebc5902bcee14b5
This is third king safety patch in recent times so we probably need
retuning of king safety parameters.
Bench: 3057978
- COMPILER=clang++ V='Apple LLVM 6.0'# Apple LLVM version 6.0 (clang-600.0.54) (based on LLVM 3.5svn)
- COMPILER=clang++ V='Apple LLVM 9.4.1'# Apple LLVM version 9.1.0 (clang-902.0.39.2)
- COMP=clang
branches:
@@ -55,7 +54,7 @@ script:
- make clean && make -j2 ARCH=x86-64 optimize=no debug=yes build && ../tests/signature.sh $benchref
- make clean && make -j2 ARCH=x86-32 optimize=no debug=yes build && ../tests/signature.sh $benchref
- make clean && make -j2 ARCH=x86-32 build && ../tests/signature.sh $benchref
- make clean && make -j2 ARCH=x86-64 build && ../tests/signature.sh $benchref
#
# Check perft and reproducible search
- ../tests/perft.sh
@@ -63,12 +62,12 @@ script:
#
# Valgrind
#
- export CXXFLAGS=-O1
- export CXXFLAGS="-O1 -fno-inline"
- if [ -x "$(command -v valgrind )" ]; then make clean && make -j2 ARCH=x86-64 debug=yes optimize=no build > /dev/null && ../tests/instrumented.sh --valgrind; fi
- if [ -x "$(command -v valgrind )" ]; then ../tests/instrumented.sh --valgrind-thread; fi
#
# Sanitizer
#
# Use g++-7 as a proxy for having sanitizers, might need revision as they become available for more recent versions of clang/gcc
- if [[ "$COMPILER" == "g++-7" ]]; then make clean && make -j2 ARCH=x86-64 sanitize=undefined optimize=no debug=yes build > /dev/null && ../tests/instrumented.sh --sanitizer-undefined; fi
- if [[ "$COMPILER" == "g++-7" ]]; then make clean && make -j2 ARCH=x86-64 sanitize=thread optimize=no debug=yes build > /dev/null && ../tests/instrumented.sh --sanitizer-thread; fi
# Use g++-8 as a proxy for having sanitizers, might need revision as they become available for more recent versions of clang/gcc
- if [[ "$COMPILER" == "g++-8" ]]; then make clean && make -j2 ARCH=x86-64 sanitize=undefined optimize=no debug=yes build > /dev/null && ../tests/instrumented.sh --sanitizer-undefined; fi
- if [[ "$COMPILER" == "g++-8" ]]; then make clean && make -j2 ARCH=x86-64 sanitize=thread optimize=no debug=yes build > /dev/null && ../tests/instrumented.sh --sanitizer-thread; fi
# verify perft numbers (positions from https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Perft+Results)
# verify perft numbers (positions from www.chessprogramming.org/Perft_Results)
error()
{
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
Stéphane Nicolet
