```
make net
```
will download the default net as specified in ucioption.cpp file.
This target assumes that `curl` or `wget` is available (in addition to grep and sed).
Needs some testing on different systems (windows, mac, etc.) to see if the implementation is portable enough.
Note that this is not part executed as part of a `make build` to make sure that a build doesn't need a network connection.
this revisits the initialization of NNUE, basically only changing
the state on the UCI options 'Use NNUE' and 'EvalFile' calling init_NNUE(),
which sets the Eval::useNNUE variable, and loads the network if needed
(i.e. useNNUE is true and the same network is not yet loaded)
init_NNUE is silent (i.e. no info strings), so that it can be called at startup
without confusing certain GUIs.
An error message on wrong setting when asking for (i.e. the net failed to load),
is delayed to the point where everything must be consistent (start of search or eval).
The engine will stop if the settings are wrong at that point.
Also works if the default value of Use NNUE would become true.
Mostly restores the previous README.md with some info and new UCI options, retaining only the info needed for the player.
The valuable training documentation is best preserved elsewhere.
Comments / fixes welcome.
Don't copy NNUE parts of StateInfo when not needed in do_null_move().
Measurement vs master at STC shows only ~3 Elo regression when NNUE
is not used, was ~5 Elo before.
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5f23a9052f7e63962b99f51b
ELO: -3.02 +-1.7 (95%) LOS: 0.0%
Total: 60000 W: 11145 L: 11666 D: 37189
Ptnml(0-2): 1018, 6945, 14494, 6626, 917
No functional change.
For some systems std::aligned_alloc is not available even if c++17 is specified.
Wrap the function and use specific solutions.
Update macosx-version-min to the required minimum.
No functional change.
update CMakeList.txt to add required C++ standard version.
Fix signature.
the code is up-to-date with master d89730d5c8 adjust signature
Bench: 4578298
Only 'nnue' target and only gcc/mingw.
(does not clean profile data generated by other compilers)
To use:
make profile-nnue ARCH=arch
(see 'make help' for list of supported archs)
In some French games, Stockfish likes to bring the Knight to a bad outpost spot. This is evident in TCEC S18 Superfinal Game 63, where there is a Knight outpost on the queenside but is actually useless. Stockfish is effectively playing a piece down while holding ground against Leela's break on the kingside.
This patch turns the +56 mg bonus for a Knight outpost into a -7 mg penalty if it satisfies the following conditions:
* The outpost square is not on the CenterFiles (i.e. not on files C,D,E and F)
* The knight is not attacking non pawn enemies.
* The side where the outpost is located contains only few enemies, with a particular conditional_more_than_two() implementation
Thank you to apospa...@gmail.com for bringing this to our attention and for providing insights.
See https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/fishcooking/dEXNzSIBgZU
Reference game: https://tcec-chess.com/#div=sf&game=63&season=18
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.93 (-2.94,2.94) {-0.50,1.50}
Total: 6960 W: 1454 L: 1247 D: 4259
Ptnml(0-2): 115, 739, 1610, 856, 160
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5f08221059f6f0353289477e
Passed LTC:
LLR: 2.98 (-2.94,2.94) {0.25,1.75}
Total: 21440 W: 2767 L: 2543 D: 16130
Ptnml(0-2): 122, 1904, 6462, 2092, 140
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5f0838ed59f6f035328947a2
various related tests show strong test results, but so far no generalizations or simplifications of conditional_more_than_two() are found. See PR for details.
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2803
Bench: 4366686
Probcut is a heuristic that wasn't changed a lot in past years,
all attempts to change it using information / writing info to transposition table failed.
This patch has a number of differences that can be summarized as follows:
* For TT write/read we use depth - 3. Because probcut search is depth - 4 but we actually do the move prior to it so effectively we do depth - 3 search;
* In any case of depth of eval from transposition table being >= depth - 3 we either produce cutoff or refuse to even do probcut search, this is allowing us to write info of probcut to transposition table because we know that we wouldn't be overwriting some deeper data with our depth - 3 search - this is an important aspect of this patch;
* For some not really known reason this patch completely ignores tte->bound() - which was the case for previous patch that made probcut interact with TT, maybe 2) is the reason, although it's unproven.
A first version of this patch passed STC and LTC
passed STC
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5f05908a59f6f03532894613
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) {-0.50,1.50}
Total: 95776 W: 18300 L: 17973 D: 59503
Ptnml(0-2): 1646, 10944, 22377, 11279, 1642
passed LTC
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5f06b54059f6f035328946bb
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {0.25,1.75}
Total: 57128 W: 7266 L: 6938 D: 42924
Ptnml(0-2): 372, 5163, 17217, 5389, 423
However, an additional bugfix was needed to avoid checking a condition on ttMove if was not available. This passed non-regression bounds on top of the first version:
at STC
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5f080e5059f6f03532894766
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 14096 W: 2800 L: 2628 D: 8668
Ptnml(0-2): 225, 1620, 3238, 1688, 277
at LTC
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5f0836a559f6f0353289479c
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 25352 W: 3228 L: 3139 D: 18985
Ptnml(0-2): 175, 2350, 7549, 2415, 187
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2804
Bench 4540940
This allows building modern compiles with SSE41 enabled,
which gives a nice speedup on my Bulldozer CPU.
For example:
make nnue ARCH=x86-64-modern sse41=yes -j
A number of engines, GUIs and tournaments start to report WDL estimates
along or instead of scores. This patch enables reporting of those stats
in a more or less standard way (http://www.talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?t=72140)
The model this reporting uses is based on data derived from a few million fishtest LTC games,
given a score and a game ply, a win rate is provided that matches rather closely,
especially in the intermediate range [0.05, 0.95] that data. Some data is shown at
https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/wiki/UsefulData#win-loss-draw-statistics-of-ltc-games-on-fishtest
Making the conversion game ply dependent is important for a good fit, and is in line
with experience that a +1 score in the early midgame is more likely a win than in the late endgame.
Even when enabled, the printing of the info causes no significant overhead.
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 197112 W: 37226 L: 37347 D: 122539
Ptnml(0-2): 2591, 21025, 51464, 20866, 2610
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ef79ef4f993893290cc146b
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2778
No functional change
We lower the endgame value of the evaluation when we detect that there
is only one queen left on the board (more precisely, we use a scale
factor of 37/64, or about 0.58, for the endgame part of the evaluation).
Hopefully this helps a little bit for the assessment of positions with
queen imbalance, which are one of the well-known Stockfish weaknesses.
STC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-0.50,1.50}
Total: 21600 W: 4176 L: 3955 D: 13469
Ptnml(0-2): 351, 2457, 5003, 2598, 391
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ef871b6020eec13834a94e8
LTC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) {0.25,1.75}
Total: 248328 W: 30596 L: 29720 D: 188012
Ptnml(0-2): 1544, 22345, 75665, 22911, 1699
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ef87aec020eec13834a94fe
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2781
Bench: 4441323
* Supports popcnt (thanks @daylen)
* bits = 64 is now the default
Tested with g++ (Ubuntu/Linaro 7.5.0-3ubuntu1~18.04) 7.5.0 on ThunderX CN8890,
yields about 9% speedup.
Also tested with clang version 6.0.0-1ubuntu2 (tags/RELEASE_600/final).
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2770
No functional change.
the option was, since at least 2014, not correctly implemented,
ignoring all dynamic adjustments to optimum time in search.
Instead of fixing it, remove it, no need to expose an option that
will influence time management negatively.
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2765
No functional change.
The idea of this patch is that if capture can be described as
"less valuable piece takes more valuable piece" it's not really correct
to add only piece value of captured piece to static evaluation
since there can be more threats in other places and opponent can't really
do much but recapture our capturing piece which leaves us space for
more captures thus winning more material and increasing static eval.
passed STC
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ef0167b122d6514328d760f
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) {-0.50,1.50}
Total: 24736 W: 4838 L: 4607 D: 15291
Ptnml(0-2): 438, 2812, 5648, 3021, 449
passed LTC
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ef073bc122d6514328d7693
LLR: 2.93 (-2.94,2.94) {0.25,1.75}
Total: 46152 W: 5865 L: 5567 D: 34720
Ptnml(0-2): 312, 4160, 13886, 4354, 364
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2761
bench 4789930
We increase a little bit the midgame value of pawns on a4, h4, a6 and h6.
Original idea by Malcolm Campbell, who tried the version restricted to the
pawns on the H column a couple of weeks ago and got a patch which almost
passed LTC. The current pull request just adds the same idea for pawns on
the A column.
Possible follow-ups: maybe tweak the a5/h5 pawn values, and/or add a malus
for very low king mobility in midgame?
STC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-0.50,1.50}
Total: 33416 W: 6516 L: 6275 D: 20625
Ptnml(0-2): 575, 3847, 7659, 4016, 611
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ee6c4e687586124bc2c10d4
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) {0.25,1.75}
Total: 134368 W: 16869 L: 16319 D: 101180
Ptnml(0-2): 908, 12083, 40708, 12521, 964
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ee74e60aae8aec816ab756a
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2747
Bench: 5299456
Tuned search constants after many search patches since the last
successful tune.
1st LTC @ 60+0.6 th 1 :
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) {0.25,1.75}
Total: 57656 W: 7369 L: 7036 D: 43251
Ptnml(0-2): 393, 5214, 17336, 5437, 448
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ee1e074f29b40b0fc95af19
SMP LTC @ 20+0.2 th 8 :
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) {0.25,1.75}
Total: 83576 W: 9731 L: 9341 D: 64504
Ptnml(0-2): 464, 7062, 26369, 7406, 487
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ee35a21f29b40b0fc95b008
The changes were rebased on top of a successful patch by Viz (see #2734)
and two different ways of doing this were tested. The successful test
modified the constants in the patch by Viz in a similar manner to the
tuning run:
LTC (rebased) @ 60+0.6 th 1 :
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {0.25,1.75}
Total: 193384 W: 24241 L: 23521 D: 145622
Ptnml(0-2): 1309, 17497, 58472, 17993, 1421
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ee43319ca6c451633a995f9
Further work: the recent patch to quantize eval #2733 affects search quit
quite a bit, so doing another tune in, say, three months time might be a
good idea.
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2735
Bench 4246971
We replace the current decrease of the complexity term in initiative
when shuffling by a direct damping of the evaluation. This scheme may
have two benefits over the initiative approach:
a) the damping effect is more brutal for fortresses with heavy pieces
on the board, because the initiative term is almost an endgame term;
b) the initiative implementation had a funny side effect, almost a bug,
in the rare positions where mg > 0, eg < 0 and the tampered eval
returned a positive value (ie with heavy pieces still on the board):
sending eg to zero via shuffling would **increase** the tampered
eval instead of decreasing it, which is somewhat illogical. This
patch avoids this phenomenon.
STC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-0.50,1.50}
Total: 43072 W: 8373 L: 8121 D: 26578
Ptnml(0-2): 729, 4954, 9940, 5162, 751
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ee008ebf29b40b0fc95ade2
LTC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {0.25,1.75}
Total: 37376 W: 4816 L: 4543 D: 28017
Ptnml(0-2): 259, 3329, 11286, 3508, 306
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ee03b06f29b40b0fc95ae0c
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2727
Bench: 4757174
Conceptually group hash clusters into super clusters of 256 clusters.
This scheme allows us to use hash sizes up to 32 TB
(= 2^32 super clusters = 2^40 clusters).
Use 48 bits of the Zobrist key to choose the cluster index. We use 8
extra bits to mitigate the quantization error for very large hashes when
scaling the hash key to cluster index.
The hash index computation is organized to be compatible with the existing
scheme for power-of-two hash sizes up to 128 GB.
Fixes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/1349
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2722
Passed non-regression STC:
LLR: 2.93 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 37976 W: 7336 L: 7211 D: 23429
Ptnml(0-2): 578, 4295, 9149, 4356, 610
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5edcbaaef29b40b0fc95abc5
No functional change.
This is a non-functional code style change which provides a safe access handler for LineBB.
Also includes an assert in debug mode to verify square correctness.
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2719
No functional change
Merging this code into one function `winnable()`.
Should allow common concepts used to adjust the eg value,
either by addition or scaling, to be combined more effectively.
Improve trace function.
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2710
No functional change.
The idea of this patch is that if rooks are not directly attacking the opponent king,
they can support king attacks staying behind pawns or minor pieces and be really
deadly if position slightly opens up at enemy king ring ranks. Loosely based on
some stockfish games where it underestimated attacks on it king when enemy has one
or two rooks supporting pawn pushes towards it king.
passed STC
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ecb093680f2c838b96550f9
LLR: 2.93 (-2.94,2.94) {-0.50,1.50}
Total: 53672 W: 10535 L: 10265 D: 32872
Ptnml(0-2): 952, 6210, 12258, 6448, 968
passed LTC
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ecb639f80f2c838b9655117
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {0.25,1.75}
Total: 62424 W: 8094 L: 7748 D: 46582
Ptnml(0-2): 426, 5734, 18565, 6042, 445
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2700
Bench: 4663220
This patch is a combinaison of two recent parameters tweaks which had
failed narrowly (yellow) at long time control:
• improvement in move ordering during search by softening the distinction
between bad captures and good captures during move generation, leading
to improved awareness of Stockfish of potential piece sacrifices (idea
by Rahul Dsilva)
• increase in the weight of pawns in the "initiative" part of the evaluation
function. With this change Stockfish should have more incentive to exchange
pawns when losing, and to keep pawns when winning.
STC:
LLR: 2.93 (-2.94,2.94) {-0.50,1.50}
Total: 10704 W: 2178 L: 1974 D: 6552
Ptnml(0-2): 168, 1185, 2464, 1345, 190
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ec5553b377121ac09e1023d
LTC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {0.25,1.75}
Total: 60592 W: 7835 L: 7494 D: 45263
Ptnml(0-2): 430, 5514, 18086, 5817, 449
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ec55ca2377121ac09e10249
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2691
Bench: 4519117
Do not send the following info string on the first call to
aligned_ttmem_alloc() on Windows:
info string Hash table allocation: Windows large pages [not] used.
The first call occurs before the 'uci' command has been received. This
confuses some GUIs, which expect the first engine-sent command to be
'id' as the response to the 'uci' command. (see https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/2681)
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2689
No functional change.
This is a functional simplification of the time management system.
With this patch, there is a simple equation for each of two distinct
time controls: basetime + increment, and x moves in y seconds (+increment).
These equations are easy to plot and understand making future modifications
or adding additional time controls much easier.
SlowMover is reset to 100 so that is has no effect unless a user changes it.
There are two scaling variables:
* Opt_scale is a scale factor (or percentage) of time to use for this current move.
* Max_scale is a scale factor to apply to the resulting optimumTime.
There seems to be some elo gain in most scenarios.
Better performance is attributable to one of two things:
* minThinkingTime was not allowing reasonable time calculations for very short games like 10+0 or 10+0.01. This is because adding almost no increment and substracting move overhead for 50 moves quickly results in almost 0 time very early in the game. Master depended on minThinkingTime to handle these short games instead of good time management. This patch addresses this issue by lowering minThinkingTime to 0 and adjusting moverOverhead if there are very low increments.
* Notice that the time distribution curves tail downward for the first 10 moves or so. This causes less time to attribute for very early moves leaving more time available for middle moves where more important decisions happen.
Here is a summary of tests for this version at different time controls:
SMP 5+0.05
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 46544 W: 7175 L: 7089 D: 32280
Ptnml(0-2): 508, 4826, 12517, 4914, 507
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/user/protonspring
STC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 20480 W: 3872 L: 3718 D: 12890
Ptnml(0-2): 295, 2364, 4824, 2406, 351
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ebc343e7dd5693aad4e6873
STC, sudden death
LLR: 2.93 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 7024 W: 1706 L: 1489 D: 3829
Ptnml(0-2): 149, 813, 1417, 938, 195
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ebc346f7dd5693aad4e6875
STC, TCEC style
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 4192 W: 1014 L: 811 D: 2367
Ptnml(0-2): 66, 446, 912, 563, 109
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ebc34857dd5693aad4e6877
40/10
LLR: 2.93 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 54032 W: 10592 L: 10480 D: 32960
Ptnml(0-2): 967, 6148, 12677, 6254, 970
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ebc50597dd5693aad4e688d
LTC, sudden death
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 9152 W: 1391 L: 1263 D: 6498
Ptnml(0-2): 75, 888, 2526, 1008, 79
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ebc6f5c7dd5693aad4e689b
LTC
LLR: 2.98 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 12344 W: 1563 L: 1459 D: 9322
Ptnml(0-2): 70, 1103, 3740, 1171, 88
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ebc6f4c7dd5693aad4e6899
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2678
Bench: 4395562
simplify the usage of the 50 moves counter,
moving it frome the scale factor to initiative.
This patch was inspired by recent games where a blocked or semi-blocked position
was 'blundered', by moving a pawn, into a lost endgame. This patch improves this situation,
finding a more robust move more often.
for example (1s searches with many threads):
```
FEN 8/p3kp2/Pp2p3/1n2PpP1/5P2/1Kp5/8/R7 b - - 68 143
master:
6 bestmove b5c7
6 bestmove e7e8
12 bestmove e7d8
176 bestmove e7d7
patch:
3 bestmove b5c7
5 bestmove e7d8
192 bestmove e7d7
```
fixes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/2620
the patch also tests well
passed STC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 50168 W: 9508 L: 9392 D: 31268
Ptnml(0-2): 818, 5873, 11616, 5929, 848
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ebb07287dd5693aad4e680b
passed LTC
LLR: 2.93 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 7520 W: 981 L: 870 D: 5669
Ptnml(0-2): 49, 647, 2256, 760, 48
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ebbff747dd5693aad4e6858
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2666
Bench: 4395562
for users that set the needed privilige "Lock Pages in Memory"
large pages will be automatically enabled (see Readme.md).
This expert setting might improve speed, 5% - 30%, depending
on the hardware, the number of threads and hash size. More for
large hashes, large number of threads and NUMA. If the operating
system can not allocate large pages (easier after a reboot), default
allocation is used automatically. The engine log provides details.
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2656
fixes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/2619
No functional change
fixes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/2660
The problem was caused by .depend being created with a rule for tbprobe.o not for syzygy/tbprobe.o.
This patch keeps an explicit list of sources (SRCS), generates OBJS,
and compiles all object files to the src/ directory, consistent with .depend.
VPATH is used to search the syzygy directory as needed.
joint work with @gvreuls
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2664
No functional change
The purpose of the code is to allow developers to easily and flexibly
setup SF for a tuning session. Mainly you have just to remove 'const'
qualifiers from the variables you want to tune and flag them for
tuning, so if you have:
int myKing = 10;
Score myBonus = S(5, 15);
Value myValue[][2] = { { V(100), V(20) }, { V(7), V(78) } };
and at the end of the update you may want to call
a post update function:
void my_post_update();
If instead of default Option's min-max values,
you prefer your custom ones, returned by:
std::pair<int, int> my_range(int value)
Or you jus want to set the range directly, you can
simply add below:
TUNE(SetRange(my_range), myKing, SetRange(-200, 200), myBonus, myValue, my_post_update);
And all the magic happens :-)
At startup all the parameters are printed in a
format suitable to be copy-pasted in fishtest.
In case the post update function is slow and you have many
parameters to tune, you can add:
UPDATE_ON_LAST();
And the values update, including post update function call, will
be done only once, after the engine receives the last UCI option.
The last option is the one defined and created as the last one, so
this assumes that the GUI sends the options in the same order in
which have been defined.
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2654
No functional change.
This patch increases number of nodes where we produce multicut cutoffs.
The idea is that if our ttMove failed to produce a singular extension
but ttValue is greater than beta we can afford to do one more reduced search
near beta excluding ttMove to see if it will produce a fail high -
and if it does so produce muticut by analogy to existing logic.
passed STC
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e9a162b5b664cdba0ce6e28
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-0.50,1.50}
Total: 58238 W: 11192 L: 10917 D: 36129
Ptnml(0-2): 1007, 6704, 13442, 6939, 1027
passed LTC
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e9a1e845b664cdba0ce7411
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {0.25,1.75}
Total: 137852 W: 17460 L: 16899 D: 103493
Ptnml(0-2): 916, 12610, 41383, 13031, 986
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2640
bench 4881443
This is a functional simplification which fixes an awkward numerical cliff.
With master king_safety, no pawns is scored higher than pawn(s) that is/are far from the king. This may motivate SF to throw away pawns to increase king safety. With this patch, there is a consistent value for minPawnDistance where losing a pawn never increases king safety.
STC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 45548 W: 8624 L: 8525 D: 28399
Ptnml(0-2): 592, 4937, 11587, 5096, 562
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e98ced630be947a14e9ddc5
LTC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 42084 W: 5292 L: 5242 D: 31550
Ptnml(0-2): 193, 3703, 13252, 3649, 245
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e98e22e30be947a14e9de07
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2639
bench 4600292
This idea is loosely based on xoroshiro idea about raisedBeta and ttmoves.
If our ttmove have low enough ttvalue and is deep enough (deeper than our probcut depth) it makes little sense to try probcut moves, since the ttMove already more or less failed to produce one according to transposition table.
passed STC
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e9673ddc2718dee3c822920
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) {-0.50,1.50}
Total: 72148 W: 14038 L: 13741 D: 44369
Ptnml(0-2): 1274, 8326, 16615, 8547, 1312
passed LTC
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e96b378c2718dee3c8229bf
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {0.25,1.75}
Total: 89054 W: 11418 L: 10996 D: 66640
Ptnml(0-2): 623, 8113, 26643, 8515, 633
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2632
bench 4952731
This patch refines the recently introduced interaction between
the space bonus and the number of blocked pawns in a position.
* pawns count as blocked also if their push square is attacked by 2 enemy pawns;
* overall dependence is stronger as well as offset;
* bonus increase is capped at 9 blocked pawns in position;
passed STC
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e94560663d105aebbab243d
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) {-0.50,1.50}
Total: 29500 W: 5842 L: 5603 D: 18055
Ptnml(0-2): 504, 3443, 6677, 3562, 564
passed LTC
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e95b383c2aaa99f75d1a14d
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) {0.25,1.75}
Total: 63504 W: 8329 L: 7974 D: 47201
Ptnml(0-2): 492, 5848, 18720, 6197, 495
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2631
bench 4956028
+-------+
| o . . | o their pawns
| x . . | x our pawns
| . x . | <- Can sacrifice to create passer?
+-------+
yes
1 2 3 4 5
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| o . . | | o r . | | o r . | | o . b | | o . b | lowercase: theirs
| x b . | | x . . | | x . R | | x . R | | x . . | uppercase: ours
| . x . | | . x . | | . x . | | . x . | | . x B |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
no no yes no yes
The value of our top pawn depends on our ability to advance our bottom
pawn, levering their blocker. Previously, this pawn configuration was
always scored as passer (although a blocked one).
Add requirements for the square s above our (possibly) sacrificed pawn:
- s must not be occupied by them (1).
- If they attack s (2), we must attack s (3).
- If they attack s with a minor (4), we must attack s with a minor (5).
The attack from their blocker is ignored because it is inherent in the
structure; we are ok with sacrificing our bottom pawn.
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) {0.25,1.75}
Total: 37030 W: 4962 L: 4682 D: 27386
Ptnml(0-2): 266, 3445, 10863, 3625, 316
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e92a2b4be6ede5b954bf239
STC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-0.50,1.50}
Total: 40874 W: 8066 L: 7813 D: 24995
Ptnml(0-2): 706, 4753, 9324, 4890, 764
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e922199af0a0143109dc90e
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2624
Bench: 4828294
In master, if the received ttMove meets the prescribed conditions in the various MovePicker constructors, it is returned as the first move, otherwise we set it to MOVE_NONE. If set to MOVE_NONE, we no longer track what the ttMove was, and it will might be returned later in a list of generated moves. This may be a waste. With this patch, if the ttMove fails to meet the prescribed conditions, we simply skip the TT stages, but still store the move and make sure it's never returned.
STC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 66424 W: 12903 L: 12806 D: 40715
Ptnml(0-2): 1195, 7730, 15230, 7897, 1160
LTC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 45682 W: 5989 L: 5926 D: 33767
Ptnml(0-2): 329, 4361, 13443, 4334, 374
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2616
Bench 4928928
Before this commit, some pawns were considered "candidate" passed pawns and given half bonus. After this commit, all of these pawns are scored as passed pawns, and they do not receive less bonus.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 21806 W: 4320 L: 4158 D: 13328
Ptnml(0-2): 367, 2526, 5001, 2596, 413
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e86b4724411759d9d098639
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 12590 W: 1734 L: 1617 D: 9239
Ptnml(0-2): 96, 1187, 3645, 1238, 129
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e86d2874411759d9d098640
This PR and commit are dedicated to our colleague Stefan Geschwentner (@locutus2), one of the most respected and accomplished members of the Stockfish developer community. Stockfish is a volunteer project and has always thrived because of Stefan's talent, insight, generosity, and dedication. Welcome back, Stefan!
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2613
Bench: 4831963
In more than 100k local KNPK games, there is no discernible difference between master and master with this endgame removed: master:42971, patch:42973, draws: 3969. Removal does not seem to regress in normal games.
STC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 46390 W: 8998 L: 8884 D: 28508
Ptnml(0-2): 707, 5274, 11163, 5300, 751
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e83b18ee42a5c3b3ca2ef02
LTC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 44768 W: 5863 L: 5814 D: 33091
Ptnml(0-2): 251, 3918, 14028, 3905, 282
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e84a82a4411759d9d0984f4
In tests with a book of endgames that can convert into KNPK, no significant difference can be seen either
```
TC 1.0+0.01
Score of patch vs master: 6131 - 6188 - 27681 [0.499] 40000
Elo difference: -0.5 +/- 1.9, LOS: 30.4 %, DrawRatio: 69.2 %
TC 2.0+0.02
Score of patch vs master: 5740 - 5741 - 28519 [0.500] 40000
Elo difference: -0.0 +/- 1.8, LOS: 49.6 %, DrawRatio: 71.3 %
``
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2611
Bench 4512059
The idea behind this patch is that if static eval is really bad so capturing of current piece on spot will still produce a position with an eval much lower than alpha then our best chance is to create some kind of king attack. So captures without check are mostly worse than captures with check and can be reduced more.
passed STC
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e8514b44411759d9d098543
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-0.50,1.50}
Total: 46196 W: 9039 L: 8781 D: 28376
Ptnml(0-2): 750, 5412, 10628, 5446, 862
passed LTC
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e8530134411759d9d09854c
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {0.25,1.75}
Total: 23462 W: 3228 L: 2988 D: 17246
Ptnml(0-2): 186, 2125, 6849, 2405, 166
close https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2612
bench 4742598
There is an ambiguity between global and std clamp implementations when compiling in c++17,
and on certain toolchains that are not strictly conforming to c++11.
This is solved by putting our clamp implementation in a namespace.
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2572
No functional change.
In November 2019, as a result of the simplification of rank-based outposts by 37698b0,
separate bonuses were introduced for outposts that are currently occupied and outposts
that are reachable on the next move. However, the values of these two bonuses are
quite similar, and they have remained that way for three months of development.
It appears that we can safely retire the separate ReachableOutpost parameter and
use the same Outpost bonus in both cases, restoring the basic principles of Stockfish
outpost evaluation to their pre-November state, while also reducing
the size of the parameter space.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 47680 W: 9213 L: 9092 D: 29375
Ptnml(0-2): 776, 5573, 11071, 5594, 826
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e51e33190a0a02810d09802
LTC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 14690 W: 1960 L: 1854 D: 10876
Ptnml(0-2): 93, 1381, 4317, 1435, 119
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e52197990a0a02810d0980f
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2559
Bench: 4697493
Current move histories are known to work well near the leaves, whilst at
higher depths they aren't very helpful. To address this problem this
patch introduces a table dedicated for what's happening at plies 0-3.
It's structured like mainHistory with ply index instead of color.
It get cleared with each new search and is filled during iterative
deepening at higher depths when recording successful quiet moves near
the root or traversing nodes which were in the principal variation
(ttPv).
Medium TC (20+0.2):
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e4d358790a0a02810d096dc
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-0.50,1.50}
Total: 100910 W: 16682 L: 16376 D: 67852
Ptnml(0-2): 1177, 10983, 25883, 11181, 1231
LTC:
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e4e2cb790a0a02810d09714
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) {0.25,1.75}
Total: 80444 W: 10495 L: 10095 D: 59854
Ptnml(0-2): 551, 7479, 23803, 7797, 592
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2557
Bench: 4705960
This is a patch that significantly improves playing KNNKP endgames:
```
Score of 2553 vs master: 132 - 38 - 830 [0.547] 1000
Elo difference: 32.8 +/- 8.7, LOS: 100.0 %, DrawRatio: 83.0 %
```
At the same time it reduces the evaluation of this mostly draw engame
from ~7.5 to ~1.5
This patch does not regress against master in normal games:
STC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 96616 W: 18459 L: 18424 D: 59733
Ptnml(0-2): 1409, 10812, 23802, 10905, 1380
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e49dfe6f8d1d52b40cd31bc
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 49726 W: 6340 L: 6304 D: 37082
Ptnml(0-2): 239, 4227, 15906, 4241, 250
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e4ab9ee16fb3df8c4cc01d0
Theory: KNNK is a dead draw, however the presence of the additional weakSide pawn opens up some mate opportunities. The idea is to block the pawn (preferably behind the Troitsky line) with one of the knights and press the weakSide king into a corner. If we can stalemate the king, we release the pawn with the knight (to avoid actual stalemate), and use the knight to complete the mate before the pawn promotes. This is also why there is an additional penalty for advancement of the pawn.
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2553
Bench: 4981770
Fixes#2533, fixes#2543, fixes#2423.
the code that prevents false mate announcements depending on the TT
state (GHI), incorrectly used VALUE_MATE_IN_MAX_PLY. The latter
constant, however, also includes, counterintuitively, the TB win range.
This patch fixes that, by restoring the behavior for TB win scores,
while retaining the false mate correctness, and improving the mate
finding ability. In particular
no alse mates are announced with the poisened hash testcase
```
position fen 8/8/8/3k4/8/8/6K1/7R w - - 0 1
go depth 40
position fen 8/8/8/3k4/8/8/6K1/7R w - - 76 1
go depth 20
ucinewgame
```
mates are found with the testcases reported in #2543
```
position fen 4k3/3pp3/8/8/8/8/2PPP3/4K3 w - - 0 1
setoption name Hash value 1024
go depth 55
ucinewgame
```
and
```
position fen 4k3/4p3/8/8/8/8/3PP3/4K3 w - - 0 1
setoption name Hash value 1024
go depth 45
ucinewgame
```
furthermore, on the mate finding benchmark (ChestUCI_23102018.epd),
performance improves over master, roughly reaching performance with the
false mate protection reverted
```
Analyzing 6566 mate positions for best and found mates:
----------------best ---------------found
nodes master revert fixed master revert fixed
16000000 4233 4236 4235 5200 5201 5199
32000000 4583 4585 4585 5417 5424 5418
64000000 4852 4853 4855 5575 5584 5579
128000000 5071 5068 5066 5710 5720 5716
256000000 5280 5282 5279 5819 5827 5826
512000000 5471 5468 5468 5919 5935 5932
```
On a testcase with TB enabled, progress is made consistently, contrary
to master
```
setoption name SyzygyPath value ../../../syzygy/3-4-5/
setoption name Hash value 2048
position fen 1R6/3k4/8/K2p4/4n3/2P5/8/8 w - - 0 1
go depth 58
ucinewgame
```
The PR (prior to a rewrite for clarity)
passed STC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 65405 W: 12454 L: 12384 D: 40567
Ptnml(0-2): 920, 7256, 16285, 7286, 944
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e441a3be70d848499f63d15
passed LTC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 27096 W: 3477 L: 3413 D: 20206
Ptnml(0-2): 128, 2215, 8776, 2292, 122
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e44e277e70d848499f63d63
The incorrectly named VALUE_MATE_IN_MAX_PLY and VALUE_MATED_IN_MAX_PLY
were renamed into VALUE_TB_WIN_IN_MAX_PLY and VALUE_TB_LOSS_IN_MAX_PLY,
and correclty defined VALUE_MATE_IN_MAX_PLY and VALUE_MATED_IN_MAX_PLY
were introduced.
One further (corner case) mistake using these constants was fixed (go
mate X), which could lead to a premature return if X > MAX_PLY / 2,
but TB were present.
Thanks to @svivanov72 for one of the reports and help fixing the issue.
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2552
Bench: 4932981
Align the TT allocation by 2M to make it huge page friendly and advise the
kernel to use huge pages.
Benchmarks on my i7-8700K (6C/12T) box: (3 runs per bench per config)
vanilla (nps) hugepages (nps) avg
==================================================================================
bench | 3012490 3024364 3036331 3071052 3067544 3071052 +1.5%
bench 16 12 20 | 19237932 19050166 19085315 19266346 19207025 19548758 +1.1%
bench 16384 12 20 | 18182313 18371581 18336838 19381275 19738012 19620225 +7.0%
On my box, huge pages have a significant perf impact when using a big
hash size. They also speed up TT initialization big time:
vanilla (s) huge pages (s) speed-up
=======================================================================
time stockfish bench 16384 1 1 | 5.37 1.48 3.6x
In practice, huge pages with auto-defrag may always be enabled in the
system, in which case this patch has no effect. This
depends on the values in /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled
and /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/defrag.
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2463
No functional change
This patch greatly increases the endgame penalty for having a trapped rook.
Idea was a result of witnessing Stockfish losing some games at CCCC exchanging
pieces in the position with a trapped rook which directly lead to a lost endgame.
This patch should partially fix such behavior making this penalty high even in
deep endgames.
Passed STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e279d7cc3b97aa0d75bc1c4
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.00,3.00}
Total: 8528 W: 1706 L: 1588 D: 5234
Ptnml(0-2): 133, 957, 1985, 1024, 159
Passed LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e27aee4c3b97aa0d75bc1e1
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) {0.00,2.00}
Total: 88713 W: 11520 L: 11130 D: 66063
Ptnml(0-2): 646, 8170, 26342, 8492, 676
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2510
Bench: 4964462
----------------------
Comment by Malcolm Campbell:
Congrats! I think this might be a common pattern - scores that seem to mainly apply
to the midgame are often better with a similar (or at least fairly big) endgame value
as well. Maybe there are others eval parameters we can tweak like this...
Currently on a normal bench run in ~0,7% of cases 'improving' is set to
true although the static eval isn't improving at all, just keeping
equal. It looks like the strict gt-operator is more appropriate here,
since it returns to 'improving' its literal meaning without sideffects.
STC {-1.00,3.00} failed yellow:
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e1ec38c8fd5f550e4ae1c28
LLR: -2.93 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.00,3.00}
Total: 53155 W: 10170 L: 10109 D: 32876
Ptnml(0-2): 863, 6282, 12251, 6283, 892
non-regression LTC passed:
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e1f1c0d8fd5f550e4ae1c41
LLR: 2.98 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 23961 W: 3114 L: 3018 D: 17829
Ptnml(0-2): 163, 2220, 7114, 2298, 170
CLoses https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2496
bench: 4561386
This is a non-functional simplification. Looks like std::bitset works good
for the KPKBitbase. Thanks for Jorg Oster for helping get the speed up
(the [] accessor is faster than test()).
Speed testing: 10k calls to probe:
master 9.8 sec
patch 9.8 sec.
STC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 100154 W: 19025 L: 18992 D: 62137
Ptnml(0-2): 1397, 11376, 24572, 11254, 1473
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e21e601346e35ac603b7d2b
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2502
No functional change
This is a non-functional speed-up: master has to access SquareBB twice while this patch
determines opposite_colors just using the values of the squares. It doesn't seem to change
the overall speed of bench, but calling opposite_colors(...) 10 Million times:
master: 39.4 seconds
patch: 11.4 seconds.
The only data point I have (other than my own tests), is a quite old failed STC test:
LLR: -2.93 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 24308 W: 5331 L: 5330 D: 13647
Ptnml(0-2): 315, 2577, 6326, 2623, 289
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e010256c13ac2425c4a9a67
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2498
No functional change
This is a non-functional simplification. If we use the "side to move" of the entry
instead of the template, one of the classify methods goes away. Furthermore, I've
resolved the colors in some of the statements (we're already assuming direction
using NORTH), and used stm (side to move) instead of "us," since this is much clearer
to me.
This is not tested because it is non-functional, only applies building the bitbase
and there are no changes to the binary (on my machine).
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2485
No functional change
This is a non-functional simplification. Instead of passing the piece type
for remove_piece, we can rely on the board. The only exception is en-passant
which must be explicitly set because the destination square for the capture
is not the same as the piece to remove.
Verified also in the Chess960 castling case by running a couple of perft, see
the pull request discussion: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2460
STC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 18624 W: 4147 L: 4070 D: 10407
Ptnml(0-2): 223, 1933, 4945, 1938, 260
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5dfeaa93e70446e17e451163
No functional change
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
Official release version of Stockfish 10.
This is also the 10th anniversary version of the Stockfish project, which
started exactly ten years ago! I wish to extend a huge thank you to
all contributors and authors in our amazing community :-)
Bench: 3939338
The patch was tested for correctness by running bench with and
without the change against current master, and the tablebase hit
numbers were found to be identical in both cases. See the pull
request comments for details:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1826
No functional change.
On November 16th, before the removal of the depth condition, I tried
revising castling extensions to only handle castling moves, rather than
moves that change castling rights generally. It appeared to be a slight
Elo gain at STC but insufficient to pass [0, 4] (+0.5 Elo), but what I
overlooked was that it made pos.can_castle(us) irrelevant and should
have been a simplification. Recent discussion with @Chess13234 and
Michael Chaly (@Vizvezdenec) inspired me to take a second look, and
the simplification continues to pass when rebased on the current master.
This replaces two conditions with one, because type_of(move) == CASTLING
implies pos.can_castle(Us), allowing us to remove the latter condition.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 110948 W: 24209 L: 24263 D: 62476
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf8f65c0ebc5902bced3a63
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 88283 W: 14681 L: 14668 D: 58934
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf994a60ebc5902bced4349
Bench: 3939338
When running on a cloud VM (n1-highcpu-96) with several NVMe SSDs and
some non-SSDs for tablebases, I noticed that the average SSD request size was
more than 256 kB. This doesn't make a lot of sense for Syzygy tablebases,
which have a block size of 32 bytes and very low locality.
Seemingly, the tablebase access patterns during probing make the OS,
at least Linux, think that readahead is advantageous; normally, it
gives up doing readahead if there are too many misses, but it doesn't,
perhaps due to the fairly high overall hit rates. (It seems the kernel cannot
distinguish between reading a block that was paged in because the userspace
wanted it explicitly, and one that was read as part of readahead.)
Setting MADV_RANDOM effectively turns off readahead, which causes
the request size to drop to 4 kB. In the aforemented cloud VM test,
this roughly tripled the amount of I/O requests that were able to go
through, while reducing the total traffic from 2.8 GB/sec to 56 MB/sec
(moving the bottleneck to the non-SSDs; it seems the SSDs could have
sustained many more requests).
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1829
No functional change.
Don't do an extra TT update in case of a fail-high,
but simply break off the moves loop and let the TT update
at the end of qsearch do this job.
Same workflow/logic as in our main search function now.
Tested for no regression to be on the safe side.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 30237 W: 6665 L: 6560 D: 17012
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf928e80ebc5902bced3f3a
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 51067 W: 8625 L: 8553 D: 33889
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf937180ebc5902bced3fdc
No functional change.
Tropism in kingdanger was simplified away in this pull request #1821.
This patch reintroduces tropism in kingdanger with using quadratic scaling.
Passed STC http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf7c1b10ebc5902bced1f8f
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 52803 W: 11835 L: 11442 D: 29526
Passed LTC http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf816e90ebc5902bced24f1
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 17204 W: 2988 L: 2795 D: 11421
How do we continue from there?
I've recently tried to introduce tropism difference term in kingdanger which
passed STC 6 times but failed LTC all the time. Maybe using quadratic scaling
for it will also be helpful.
Bench 4041387
A recent LTC tuning session by @candirufish showed this term decreasing significantly. It appears that it can be removed altogether without significant Elo loss.
I also thank @GuardianRM, whose attempt to remove tropism from king danger inspired this one.
After this PR is merged, my next step will be to attempt to tune the coefficients of this new, simplified kingDanger calculation.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 12518 W: 2795 L: 2656 D: 7067
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5befadda0ebc595e0ae3a289
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 164771 W: 26463 L: 26566 D: 111742
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5befcca70ebc595e0ae3a343
LTC 2, rebased on Stockfish 10 beta:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 75226 W: 12563 L: 12529 D: 50134
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf2e8910ebc5902bcecb919
Bench: 3412071
Because of aggressive time management and optimistic assumptions
about move overhead, it's still very easy to get Stockfish to forfeit
on time when we hit an endgame and have Syzygy EGTB on a spinning
drive. The latency from serving a few thousand EGTB probes (~10ms each),
of which there can currently be up to 4000 outstanding before a time
check, will easily overwhelm the default Move Overhead of 30ms.
This problem was first raised by Gian-Carlo Pascutto and some solutions
and improvements were discussed in the following pull requests:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1471https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1623https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1783
This patch is a minimal change proposed by Marco Costalba to lower
the impact of the bug. We now force a check of the clock right after
each tablebase read.
No functional change.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 51883 W: 11297 L: 10915 D: 29671
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf1e2ee0ebc595e0ae3cacd
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 15859 W: 2752 L: 2565 D: 10542
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf337980ebc5902bcecbf62
Notes:
(1) The bonus value has not been carefully tested, so it may be possible
to find slightly better values.
(2) Plan is to now try adding similar restriction for pawns. I wanted to
include that as part of this pull request, but I was advised to do it as
two separate pull requests. STC is currently running here, but may not add
enough value to pass green.
Bench: 3679086
Preparation commit for the upcoming Stockfish 10 version, giving a chance to catch last minute feature bugs and evaluation regression during the one-week code freeze period. Also changing the copyright dates to include 2019.
No functional change
STC:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 84697 W: 18173 L: 18009 D: 48515
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bea366f0ebc595e0ae34793
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 157625 W: 25533 L: 24893 D: 107199
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5be8b69e0ebc595e0ae33024
Personally, I feel like SF has been tuned to death recently and that we
need to step away from existing-parameter tunes for a bit and focus more
on new ideas. I don't really think there's much more ELO in these tunes
(for now). For me at least, this was the last existing-parameter tune I'll
be running for quite a while. Cheers!
Bench: 3572567
It does not appear to be not necessary or advantageous to
conditionally initialize kingRing[Us] or kingAttackersCount[Them],
so the 'else' can be removed.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 22873 W: 4923 L: 4804 D: 13146
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5be9a8270ebc595e0ae33c7e
No functional change
To top the rating lists and get more interesting middle play, it
is a good habit to set the default contempt to the highest value
that does not regress against contempt=0. We recently decreased
PawnValueEg it is logical that to raise a little bit the default
higher contempt because of the following internal dependency in
line 334 of search.cpp :
````
int ct = int(Options["Contempt"]) * PawnValueEg / 100; // From centipawns
````
STC: contempt=24 passed non-regression vs contempt=0
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bd6d7f80ebc595e0ae21e14
LTC: contempt=24 passed non-regression LTC vs contempt=0
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bd6e0980ebc595e0ae21f07
On 2018-11-01, we also tested the effects of contempt=21 and contempt=24
against Stockfish 9, and the net result was neutral:
Contempt 21
ELO: 51.68 +-1.9 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 40000 W: 9487 L: 3581 D: 26932
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bdb1a140ebc595e0ae2620a
Contempt 24
ELO: 52.21 +-2.0 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 40000 W: 9759 L: 3793 D: 26448
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bdb1b680ebc595e0ae2620d
Bench: 3459874
This patch will make possible to free mapped TB files with "ucinewgame" command.
We wrote this patch specifically to address a problem that arose while
running Stockfish with 7-piece tablebases as a kibitzer at TCEC for
extended periods of time across multiple games. It was noted that after
some time, the NPS of the kibitzing Stockfish (which is usually 3x faster
than the Stockfish actually competing) would drop precipitously, eventually
falling to preposterously low numbers until restarted.
Their eval bot basically inputs FEN, go infinite, stop and loop, it probably
didn't do ucinewgame either. As time goes it gradually slowed down and OS
starts to use swap, this is not reasonable since the engine only uses 16GB
hash and the machine has 1TB physical RAM and does nothing else.
Author : noobpwnftw
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1790
No functional change.
We don't need to pass the king square as an explicit parameter to the functions
king_safety() and do_king_safety() since we already pass in the position.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 69686 W: 14894 L: 14866 D: 39926
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5be84ac20ebc595e0ae3283c
No functional change.
We calculate tropism as a sum of two factors. The first is the number of squares in our kingFlank and Camp that are attacked by the enemy; the second is number of these squares that are attacked twice. Prior to this commit, we excluded squares we defended with pawns from this second value, but this appears unnecessary. (Doubly-attacked squares near our king are still dangerous.) The removal of this exclusion is a possible small Elo gain at STC (estimated +1.59) and almost exactly neutral at LTC (estimated +0.04).
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 20942 W: 4550 L: 4427 D: 11965
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5be4e0ae0ebc595e0ae308a0
LTC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 56941 W: 9172 L: 9108 D: 38661
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5be4ec340ebc595e0ae30938
Bench: 3813986
The recently committed Fail-High patch (081af90805)
had a number of changes beyond adjusting the depth of search on fail high, with
some undesirable side effects.
1) Decreasing depth on PV output, confusing GUIs and players alike as described in
issue #1787. The depth printed is anyway a convention, let's consider adjustedDepth
an implementation detail, and continue to print rootDepth. Depth, nodes, time and
move quality all increase as we compute more. (fixing this output has no effect on
play).
2) Fixes go depth output (now based on rootDepth again, no effect on play), also
reported in issue #1787
3) The depth lastBestDepth is used to compute how long a move is stable, a new move
found during fail-high is incorrectly considered stable if based on adjustedDepth
instead of rootDepth (this changes time management). Reverting this passed STC
and LTC:
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 82982 W: 17810 L: 17808 D: 47364
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bd391a80ebc595e0ae1e993
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 109083 W: 17602 L: 17619 D: 73862
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bd40c820ebc595e0ae1f1fb
4) In the thread voting scheme, the rank of the fail-high thread is now artificially
low, incorrectly since the quality of the move is much better than what adjustedDepth
suggests (e.g. if it takes 10 iterations to find VALUE_KNOWN_WIN, it has very low
depth). Further evidence comes from a test that showed that the move of highest
depth is not better than that of the last PV (which is potentially of much lower
adjustedDepth).
I.e. this test http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bd37a120ebc595e0ae1e7c3
failed SPRT[0, 5]:
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 10609 W: 2266 L: 2345 D: 5998
In a running 5+0.05 th 8 test (more than 10000 games) a positive Elo estimate is
shown (strong enough for a [-3,1], possibly not [0,4]):
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bd421be0ebc595e0ae1f315
LLR: -0.13 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 13644 W: 2573 L: 2532 D: 8539
Elo 1.04 [-2.52,4.61] / LOS 71%
Thus, restore old behavior as a bugfix, keeping the core of the fail-high patch
idea as resolving scheme. This is non-functional for bench, but changes searches
via time management and in the threaded case.
Bench: 3556672
This helps resolving consecutive FH's during aspiration more efficiently
STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bc857920ebc592439f85765
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 4992 W: 1134 L: 980 D: 2878 Elo +10.72
LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bc868050ebc592439f857ef
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 8123 W: 1363 L: 1210 D: 5550 Elo +6.54
No-Regression test with 8 threads, tc=15+0.15:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bc874ca0ebc592439f85938
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 24740 W: 3977 L: 3863 D: 16900 Elo +1.60
This was a cooperation between me and Michael Stembera:
-me recognizing SF having problems with resolving FH's efficiently at
high depths, thus starting some tests based on consecutive FH's.
-mstembera picking up the idea with first success at STC & LTC (so full
credits to him!)
-me suggesting how to resolve the issues pinpointed by S.G on PR #1768
and finally restricting the logic to the main thread so that it don't
regresses at multi-thread.
bench: 3314347
Enable numa machinery only for STRICTLY MORE than 8 threads. Reason for this
change is that nowadays SMP tests are always done with 8 threads. That is a
problem for multi-socket Windows machines running on fishtest.
No functional change
The patch adds a small random component (+-1) to VALUE_DRAW for the evaluation
of draw positions (mostly 3folds). This random component is not static, but
potentially different for each visit of the node (hence derived from the node
counter). The effect is that in positions with many 3fold draw lines, different
lines are followed at each iteration. This keeps the search much more dynamic,
as opposed to being locked to one particular 3fold.
An example of a position where master suffers from 3fold-blindness and this patch
solves quickly is the famous TCEC game 53:
FEN: 3r2k1/pr6/1p3q1p/5R2/3P3p/8/5RP1/3Q2K1 b - - 0 51
master doesn't see that this is a lost position (draw eval up to depth 50) as
Qf6-e6 d4-d5 (found by patch at depth 23) leads to a loss.
The 3fold-blindness is more important at longer TC, the patch was yellow STC and
LTC, but passed VLTC:
STC
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 46328 W: 10048 L: 9953 D: 26327
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b9c0ca20ebc592cf275f7c7
LTC
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 54663 W: 8938 L: 8846 D: 36879
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b9ca1610ebc592cf27601d3
VLTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 31789 W: 4512 L: 4284 D: 22993
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b9d1a670ebc592cf276076d
Credit to @crossbr for pointing to this problem repeatedly, and giving the hint
that many draw lines are typical in those situations.
Bench: 4756639
Currently we update (track up) the pv even in the fail high case.
However most times in such cases the pv in the ply below remains unset
because there we have value == alpha and so finally we see truncated
pv's (=just one move) in fail high cases.
Of course tracking down these pv's (+sending them to the gui) comes at a
certian cost, but no-regression tests passed:
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 16300 W: 3556 L: 3424 D: 9320
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b9b73500ebc592cf275ea92
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 202411 W: 32734 L: 32897 D: 136780
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b9baed10ebc592cf275ef6d
N.B.: Digging also into qsearch was tried in another version but seemed
not to pass the tests. This means that we don't always will get a pv
until the very tips.
No functional change
This PR is a combination of two unrelated [0, 4] patches that appeared promising
but not quite strong enough to pass on their own. The combination initially failed
STC with a positive score after a long run, and the subsequent speculative LTC test
passed.
* tweak_threatOnQueen4 :
Increase the middlegame components of ThreatByMinor[QUEEN]
and ThreatByRook[QUEEN] by 15 each. Bryan's (@crossbr) analysis of CCC Bonus Game 10
inspired several tests on penalizing a queen with limited safe mobility. While
attempting to implement this idea, I noticed that when I did not include the queen's
current square in the calculations, the Elo gains seemed to vanish--and only then did
I have the idea to revisit ThreatByMinor[QUEEN] and ThreatByRook[QUEEN], adding a
corresponding value to each. Without Bryan's work, this test would never have been
submitted. I would also like to recognize the efforts and contributions of @SFisGOD,
who also vigorously worked on this idea.
* Use pure static eval for null move pruning :
This idea was directly re-purposed from a promising test by Jerry Donald Watson
(@jerrydonaldwatson) in August. It was also independently developed and tested by
Stefan Geschwentner (@locutus2) previously.
Thank you all!
STC (failed yellow):
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 83913 W: 17986 L: 17825 D: 48102
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bbc59300ebc592439f76aa5
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 137198 W: 22351 L: 21772 D: 93075
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bbce35f0ebc592439f77639
Bench: 4312846
Note by snicolet: I use this non-functional change patch
as a pretext to correct the wrong bench number I introduced
in the message of the previous commit.
Bench: 4059356
Storing unconditionally the current generation and bound is equivalent to master.
Part of the condition was added as a speed optimization in #429.
Here the branch is fully eliminated.
passed STC single-threaded:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 73515 W: 16378 L: 16359 D: 40778
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b2fc38c0ebc5902b2e57fd5
passed STC multi-threaded:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 63725 W: 12916 L: 12874 D: 37935
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b307b8f0ebc5902b2e5895f
The multithreaded test was run after a plausible suggestion by @mstembera that the effect of this could be larger with many cores. The result seems to indicate this doesn't really matter on the 8core architecture abundantly available on fishtest.
No functional change
a) Reduce PSQT values along the long diagonals on non-central squares
and increase the LongDiagonal bonus accordingly. The effect is to penalise
bishops on the long diagonal which can not "see" the 2 central squares.
The "good" bishops still have more or less the same bonus as current master.
b) For a bishop on a central square, because of the "| s" term in the code,
the LongDiagonalBonus was always given. So while being there, remove the "| s"
and compensate the central Bishop PSQT accordingly.
Passed STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 44498 W: 9658 L: 9323 D: 25517
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b8992770ebc592cf2748942
Passed LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 63092 W: 10324 L: 9975 D: 42793
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b89a17a0ebc592cf2748b59
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1760
bench: 4693901
It looks like PawnsOnBothFlanks can be removed from initiative().
A barrage of tests seem to confirm that the adjustment to -110
does not gain elo to offset any potential loss by removing
PawnsOnBothFlanks.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 22014 W: 4760 L: 4639 D: 12615
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b7f50cc0ebc5902bdbb3a3e
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40561 W: 6667 L: 6577 D: 27317
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b801f9f0ebc5902bdbb4467
The barrage of 0,4 tests on the -136 value are in my ps_tunetests branch.
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/user/protonspring
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1751
Bench: 4413173
-------------
How to continue from there?
The fact that endgames with all the pawns on only one flank are
drawish is a well-known chess idea, so it seems quite strange that
this can be removed so easily without losing Elo.
In the past there had been attempts to improve on PawnsOnBothFlanks
with similar concepts (for instance using the pawn span value), but
the tests were at best neutral. Maybe Stockfish is now mature enough
that these refined ideas would work to replace PawnsOnBothFlanks?
There is no need to make this as large as 65536 just for the sake of the
single 7-man tablebase that happens to have the key 0xf9247fff. Idea for the
fix by Ronald de Man, who suggested simply to allow more buckets past the end.
We also implement Robin Hood hashing for the hash table, which takes the worst
-case search for full 7-man tablebases down from 68 to 11 probes (Also takes
the average probe length from 2.06 to 2.05). For a table with 8K entries, the
corresponding numbers would be worst-case from 9 to 4, with average from 1.30
to 1.29.
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1747
No functional change
This commit tries to make the new pure static eval code more readable by
splitting up the nested assignments into separate lines and making a few
more cosmetic tweaks.
No functional change.
This is a non-functional change. By pre-incrementing minKingPawnDistance
instead of post-incrementing, we can remove this -1.
This also makes DistanceRing more consistent with the rest of stockfish
since it now holds an actual "distance" instead of a less natural distance-1.
In current master, PseudoAttacks[KING][ksq] == DistanceRingBB[ksq][0]
With this patch, it will be PseudoAttacks[KING][ksq] == DistanceRingBB[ksq][1]
ie squares at distance 1 from the king. This is more natural use of distance.
The current array size DistanceRingBB[SQUARE_NB][8] is still OK with the new
definition, because maximum distance between two squares on a chess board is
seven (for example Kh1 and a8).
No functional change.
Follow-up for the previous patch: we use an affine formula to mix stats
and evaluation in search. The idea is to give a bonus if the previous
move of the opponent was historically bad, and a malus if the previous
move of the opponent was historically good.
More precisely, if x is the stat score of the previous move by the opponent,
we implement the following formulas to tweak the evaluation at an internal
node of the tree for our pruning decisions at this node:
if x = 0, use v' = eval(P)
if x > 0, use v' = eval(P) - 5 - x/1024
if x < 0, use v' = eval(P) + 5 - x/1024
For reference, the previous master had this simpler rule:
if x > 0, use v' = eval(P) - 10
if x <= 0, use v' = eval(P)
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 29322 W: 6359 L: 6088 D: 16875
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b76a5980ebc5902bdba957f
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 30893 W: 5154 L: 4910 D: 20829
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b76ca6d0ebc5902bdba9914
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1740
Bench: 4592766
Mix search stats with evaluation: if the opponent's move has a good historyStat,
then decrease the evaluation of the internal node a bit for the pruning decisions
during search.
STC;
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 72083 W: 15683 L: 15203 D: 41197
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b74c3ea0ebc5902bdba7d41
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 29104 W: 4867 L: 4630 D: 19607
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b7565000ebc5902bdba851b
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1738
Bench: 4514101
-----------
How to continue from there?
• the use of the previous stat score can probably be simplified in lines 587 and 716
• we could try to use a continuous bonus based on the previous stat score, instead
of just a fixed offset of -10 when the opponent previous move was good.
----------
Comments by Stefan Geschwentner:
Interesting idea. Because only the eval in search is tweak this should only
influence the eval and static eval used at inner nodes, and not on the return
search value (which comes in the end from quiescence search), except through
saving in TT followed by a TT cutoff.
So essentialy this effects diverse pruning/reduction parts -- eval and static
eval are lowered for good opponent moves:
• tt cutoff (ttValue)
• improving (static eval)
• more razoring (eval)
• less futility pruning (eval)
• less null move pruning (eval + static eval) (but with little more depth)
• more probcut (static eval)
• more move futility pruning (static eval)
We double in this patch the weight of the capture history table in the
local scoring of captures for move ordering.
The capture history table is indexed by the triplet (capturing piece,
capture square, captured piece) and gets information like "it seems to
have been historically good in that part of the search tree to capture
a pawn with a rook on g3, even if it seems to lose material", and affect
the normaly pure « Most Valuable Victim » ordering of captures.
Finished yellow at STC after 228842 games (posting a +1.36 Elo gain):
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 228842 W: 50894 L: 50152 D: 127796
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b714bb00ebc5902bdba332d
Passed LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 43251 W: 7425 L: 7131 D: 28695
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b71c7d40ebc5902bdba3e51
Thanks to user Vizvezdenec for running the LTC test.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1736
Bench: 4272361
This patch introduces a non-linear bonus for pawns, along with some
(linear) corrections for the other pieces types.
The original values were obtained by a massive non-linear tuning of both
pawns and other pieces by GuardianRM, while Alain Savard and Chris Cain
later simplified the patch by observing that, apart from the pawn case, the
tuned corrections were in fact almost affine and could be incorporated in
our current code base via the piece values in types.h (offset) and the diagonal
of the quadratic matrix (slope). See discussion in PR#1725 :
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1725
STC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 42948 W: 9662 L: 9317 D: 23969
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b6ff6e60ebc5902bdba1d87
LTC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 19683 W: 3409 L: 3206 D: 13068
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b702dbd0ebc5902bdba216b
How to continue from there?
- Maybe the non-linearity for the pawn value could be somewhat tempered
again and a simpler linear correction for pawns would work?
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1734
Bench: 4681496
We simplify the razoring logic by applying it to all nodes at depth 1 only.
An added advantage is that only one razor margin is needed now, and we treat
PV and Non-PV nodes in the same manner.
How to continue?
- There may be some conditions in which depth 2 razoring is beneficial.
- We can see whether the razor margin can be tuned, perhaps even with a
different value for PV nodes.
- Perhaps we can unify the treatment of PV and Non-PV nodes in other parts
of the search as well.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 5474 W: 1281 L: 1127 D: 3066
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b6de3b20ebc5902bdba0d1e
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 62670 W: 10749 L: 10697 D: 41224
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b6dee340ebc5902bdba0eb0
In addition, we ran a fixed LTC test against a similar patch which also
passed SPRT [-3, 1]:
ELO: 0.23 +-2.1 (95%) LOS: 58.6%
Total: 36412 W: 6168 L: 6144 D: 24100
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b6e83940ebc5902bdba1485
We are opting for this patch as the more logical and simple of the two,
and it appears to be no less strong. Thanks in particular to @DU-jdto
for input into this patch.
Bench: 4476945
Currently, we do not consider pawns passed if there is another pawn of
the same color in front of them. It appears that this condition is not
necessary. The idea is that the doubled pawns are likely to be weak and
one of them will be likely captured anyway. On the other hand, if we do
somehow manage to promote a pawn, then the pawn behind it becomes passed
as well. In any case, the end result is we end up with an extra
potentially passed pawn. The current evaluation for passed pawns already
handles this case by also scaling down this effect.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28291 W: 6287 L: 6178 D: 15826
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b6c4b960ebc5902bdb9f256
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 30717 W: 5256 L: 5151 D: 20310
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b6c82980ebc5902bdb9f863
Bench: 4938285
Unify the "quiet" and "non-quiet" reduction rules for use at any kind of moves.
The idea behind it was that both rules reduce at similiar cases in master:
one directly for late previous moves and the other indirectly by using a
bad stat score which is used for most move sorting and so approximates the
late move condition.
For captures/promotions the old rule was triggered in 25% but the new
rule only for 3% of all cases (so now more reductions are done, whereas
for quiet moves reductions keep the same level).
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 162327 W: 35976 L: 36134 D: 90217
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b6a9a430ebc5902bdb9d5c1
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 29570 W: 5083 L: 4976 D: 19511
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b6bc5d00ebc5902bdb9e9d6
Bench: 4526980
Currently, we first calculate some bitboards at the top of Evaluation::space()
and then check whether we actually need them. Invert the ordering. Of course this
does not make a difference in current master because the constexpr bitboard
calculations are in fact done at compile time by any decent compiler, but I find
my version a bit healthier since it will always meet or exceed current implementation
even if we eventually change the spaceMask to something not contsexpr.
No functional change.
After a session of tuning for King Psqt I got some new values, which was later
tweaked manually by me Fauzi, to result in an Elo-gain patch which seems to scale
pretty well:
STC: LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 100653 W: 22550 L: 22314 D: 55789 [Yellow patch]
LTC: LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 147079 W: 25584 L: 24947 D: 96548 [Green Patch]
Bench: 4669050
Introduce voting system for best move selction in multi-threads mode.
Joint work with Stefan Geschwentner, based on ideas introduced by
Michael Stembera.
Moves are upvoted by every thread using the margin to the minimum score
across threads and the completed depth.
First thread voting for the winner move is selected as best thread.
Passed STC, LTC. A further LTC test with only 4 threads failed with positive
score. A LTC with 31 threads was stopped with LLR 0.77 after 25k games to
avoid use of excessive resources (equivalent to 1.5M STC games).
Similar ideas were proposed by Michael Stembera 2 years ago #507, #508.
This implementation seems simpler and more understandable, the results
slightly more promising.
Further possible work:
1) Tweak of the formula using for assigning votes.
2) Use a different baseline for the score dependent part: maximum score
or winning probability could make more sense.
3) Assign votes in `Thread::Search` as iterations are completed and use
voting results to stop search.
4) Select best thread as the threads voting for best move with the highest
completed depth or, alternatively, vote on PV moves.
Link to SPRT tests
[stopped LTC, 31 threads 20+0.02](http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b61dc090ebc5902bdb95192)
LLR: 0.77 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 25602 W: 3977 L: 3850 D: 17775
Elo: 1.70 [-0.68,4.07] (95%)
[passed LTC, 8 threads 20+0.02](http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b5df5180ebc5902bdb9162d)
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 44478 W: 7602 L: 7300 D: 29576
Elo: 1.92 [-0.29,3.94] (95%)
[failed LTC, 4 threads 20+0.02](http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b5f39ef0ebc5902bdb92792)
LLR: -2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 29922 W: 5286 L: 5285 D: 19351
Elo: 0.48 [-1.98,3.10] (95%)
[passed STC, 4 threads 5+0.05](http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b5dbf0f0ebc5902bdb9131c)
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 9108 W: 2033 L: 1858 D: 5217
Elo: 6.11 [1.26,10.89] (95%)
No functional change (in simple threat mode)
Use operator const T&() instead of operator T() to avoid possible
costly hidden copies of non-scalar nested types.
Currently StatsEntry has a single member T, so assuming
sizeof(StatsEntry) == sizeof(T) it happens to work, but it's
better to use the size of the proper entry type in std::fill.
Note that current code works because std::array items are ensured
to be allocated in contiguous memory and there is no padding among
nested arrays. The latter condition does not seem to be strictly
enforced by the standard, so be careful here.
Finally use address-of operator instead of get() to fully hide the
wrapper class StatsEntry at calling sites. For completness add
the arrow operator too and simplify the C++ code a bit more.
Same binary code as previous master under the Clang compiler.
No functional change.
As a note, current 2 LMR conditions on stat score
could be simplified in a single line:
r -= ((ss->statScore >= 0) - ((ss-1)->statScore >= 0)) * ONE_PLY;
We keep them splitted in 2 "if" statements because are easier
to (immediately) read.
No functional change.
This is the first patch teaching Stockfish how to use the 7-pieces
Syzygy tablebase currently calculated by Bujun Guo (@noobpwnftw) and
Ronald de Man (@syzygy1). The 7-pieces database are so big that they
required a change in the internal format of the files (technically,
some DTZ values are 16 bits long, so this had to be stored as wide
integers in the Huffman tree).
Here are the estimated file size for the 7-pieces Syzygy files,
compared to the 151G of the 6-pieces Syzygy:
```
7.1T ./7men_testing/4v3_pawnful (ongoing, 120 of 325 sets remaining)
2.4T ./7men_testing/4v3_pawnless
2.3T ./7men_testing/5v2_pawnful
660G ./7men_testing/5v2_pawnless
117G ./7men_testing/6v1_pawnful
87G ./7men_testing/6v1_pawnless
```
Some pointers to download or recalculate the tables:
Location of original files, by Bujun Guo:
ftp://ftp.chessdb.cn/pub/syzygy/
Mirrors:
http://tablebase.sesse.net/ (partial)
http://tablebase.lichess.ovh/tables/standard/7/
Generator code:
https://github.com/syzygy1/tb/
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1707
Bench: 5591925 (No functional change if SyzygyTB is not used)
----------------------
Comment by Leonardo Ljubičić (@DragonMist)
This is an amazing achievement, generating and being able to use 7 men syzygy
on the fly. Thank you for your efforts @noobpwnftw !! Looking forward how this
will work in real life, and expecting some trade off between gaining perfect
play and slow disc Access, but once the disc speed and space is not a problem,
I expect 7 men to yield something like 30 elo at least.
-----------------------
Comment by Michael Byrne (@MichaelB7)
This definitely has a bright future. I turned off the 50 move rule (ala ICCF
new rules) for the following position: `[d]8/8/1b6/8/4N2r/1k6/7B/R1K5 w - - 0 1`
This position is a 451 ply win for white (sans the 50 move rule, this position
was identified by the generator as the longest cursed win for white in KRBN v KRB).
Now Stockfish finds it instantly (as it should), nice work 👊👍 .
```
dep score nodes time
7 +132.79 4339 0:00.00 Rb1+ Kc4 Nd6+ Kc5 Bg1+ Kxd6 Rxb6+ Kc7 Be3 Rh2 Bd4
6 +132.79 1652 0:00.00 Rb1+ Kc4 Nd2+ Kd5 Rxb6 Rxh2 Nf3 Rf2
5 +132.79 589 0:00.00 Rb1+ Kc4 Rxb6 Rxh2 Nf6 Rh1+ Kb2
4 +132.79 308 0:00.00 Rb1+ Kc4 Nd6+ Kc3 Rxb6 Rxh2
3 +132.79 88 0:00.00 Rb1+ Ka4 Nc3+ Ka5 Ra1+ Kb4 Ra4+ Kxc3 Rxh4
2 +132.79 54 0:00.00 Rb1+ Ka4 Nc3+ Ka5 Ra1+ Kb4
1 +132.7
```
This patch adds the tropism measure as a new term in the king danger variable.
Since we then trasform this variable as a Score via a quadratic formula, the
main effect of the patch is the positive correlation of the tropism measure
with some checks and pins information already present in the king danger code.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 6805 W: 1597 L: 1431 D: 3777
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b5df8d10ebc5902bdb91699
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 32872 W: 5782 L: 5523 D: 21567
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b5e08d80ebc5902bdb917ee
How to continue from there?
• it may be possible to use CloseEnemies=S(7,0)
• we may want to try incorporating other strategic features in the quadratic
king danger.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1717
Bench: 5591925
The previous commit wouldn't compile on the Microsoft Virtual Studio C++ compiler. So use a more compatible style for the same idea (which we already use in numerous places of evaluate.cpp, for instance in line 563).
Under the Clang compiler, both versions generate exactly the same machine code (same md5 signatures for the two binaries).
No functional change.
Remove a popcount for HinderPassedPawn, and compensate by doubling
the bonus from S(4,0) to to S(8,0).
Maybe it was pure luck, but we got the idea of this Elo gaining patch by
seing the simplification attempt by Mike Whiteley in pull request #1703.
This suggests that whenever we have a passed evaluation simplification,
we should consider the possibility that the master bonus has become
slightly out of tune with time, and we should try a few Elo gaining [0..4]
tests by hand-tuning the master bonus.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 19136 W: 4388 L: 4147 D: 10601
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b59be6f0ebc5902bdb8ac06
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 99382 W: 17324 L: 16843 D: 65215
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b59d2410ebc5902bdb8afa8
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1710
Bench: 4688817
This tweak excludes files D and E from the KingFlank bitboard when our
king is on the A or H files respectively. As far as I can tell, this
affects two things: the calculation for CloseEnemies and PawnlessFlank.
Aside from filtering out slightly less relevant attacks in the flank,
I suspect this helps with king prophylaxis, avoiding attacks and moving
towards the center when the pawns start to come off.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 56755 W: 12881 L: 12489 D: 31385
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b58a94c0ebc5902bdb88c72
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 130205 W: 22536 L: 21957 D: 85712
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b58b7580ebc5902bdb89029
How to continue: Tweaking the two bonuses mentioned might give some
gain, although as far as I can tell, CloseEnemies is very sensitive to
even small changes.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1705
Bench: 5026009
When evaluating threat by safe pawn and pawn push the same expression is used.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 19444 W: 4540 L: 4309 D: 10595
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b5a6e150ebc5902bdb8c5c0
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1709
No functional change.
--------------------
Comments by Stéphane Nicolet:
I don't measure any speed-up on my system, with two parallel benches at depth 22:
Total time (ms) : 74989
Nodes searched : 144830258
Nodes/second : 1931353
master
Total time (ms) : 75341
Nodes searched : 144830258
Nodes/second : 1922329
testedpatch
And anyway, like Stefan Geschwentner, I don't think that a 0.3% speed-up would
be enough to pass a [0..5] LTC test -- as a first approximation, we have this
rule of thumb that 1% speed-up gives about 1 Elo point.
However, considering the facts that the reformatting by itself is interesting,
that this is your first green test and that you played by the rules by running
the SPRT[0..5] test before opening the pull request, I will commit the change.
I will only take the liberty to change the occurrences of safe in lines 590 and
591 to b, to make the code more similar to lines 584 and 585.
So approved, and congrats :-)
This patch implements some idea by Alain Savard and Mike Whiteley taken from the perpertual renaming/reformatting thread.
This is a pure code cleaning patch (so no change in functionality), but I use it as a pretext to correct the bogus bench number that I introduced in the previous commit.
Bench: 4413383
This patch reverts the recent commit called "Tweak reductions formula, etc."
The decisions for the revert decision were as follows:
1) The original commit called "Tweak reductions formula: 0.88 * depth + 0.12"
showed bad scaling at in a Very Long Time Control (VLTC) test:
VLTC (180+1.8):
LLR: -1.59 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 14968 W: 2247 L: 2257 D: 10464
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b559ffa0ebc5902bdb84f36
2) So there was a suspicion that the original fast passing LTC test which lead
us to accept the patch may have been a statistical accident, so we organized
a match against the previous master at LTC to get an Elo estimate for the
patch:
LTC match:
ELO: -1.83 +-2.1 (95%) LOS: 4.3%
Total: 36018 W: 6018 L: 6208 D: 23792
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b55f8110ebc5902bdb8526f
3) Based on these results, we ran a simplification test with [-3..1] bounds
for the revert at LTC:
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 41501 W: 7107 L: 7020 D: 27374
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b5738670ebc5902bdb86932
4) So we revert.
Bench: 4491691
There seems to be some strange interaction between Overload and Connectivity.
Overload encourages us to not have too many defended and attacked pieces,
as this may expose us to various tactics. This feels somewhat like it is in
conflict with Connectivity, where pieces are defended preemptively.
Here I take the "pick one or the other" approach and just remove connectivity,
while strengthening the effect of Overload to compensate. The reasoning is that
if we defend our pieces preemptively, then it does get attacked, we want to do
something about it so we don't get penalized by Overload. On the other
hand, if it doesn't get attacked, then there's no need to defend it.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 27734 W: 6174 L: 6064 D: 15496
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b5073bd0ebc5902bdb7ba5c
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 51606 W: 8897 L: 8827 D: 33882
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b50aa900ebc5902bdb7bf29
Bench: 4658006
After some recent big tuning session, the values for King Protector were
simplified to only be used on minor pieces. This patch tries to further
simplify by just using a single value, since current S(6,5) and S(5,6)
are close to each other. The value S(6,6) ended up passing, although
S(5,5) was also tried and failed STC.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 14261 W: 3288 L: 3151 D: 7822
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b4ccdf50ebc5902bdb77f65
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 19606 W: 3396 L: 3273 D: 12937
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b4ce4280ebc5902bdb7803b
Bench: 5448998
Extend the bonus for Overload to cases where our side
has more than one attacker to a non pawn piece.
Based on an idea by Bryan in the forum. For instance,
now black gets the overload bonus in this position:
8/5R1k/6pb/p6p/P1N4P/1Pp5/2K3P1/2N4r b - - 6 46
because two black pieces are attacking the knight on c1
that is defended only by the king.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 57446 W: 12762 L: 12711 D: 31973
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b4ca9970ebc5902bdb77a88
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 42113 W: 7295 L: 7209 D: 27609
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b4ccea00ebc5902bdb77f69
Bench: 4667263
For the rationale to allow this, see commit
a66c73deef
This was broken when cuckoo hashing was added, and
subtly broke (for example) lichess' Android application,
thus illustrating the original judgement was sound.
No functional change.
Various king and pawn eval values tuned after 2 million games. Rounding
slightly adjusted.
LTC: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b477a260ebc5978f4be3ed4
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 32783 W: 5852 L: 5588 D: 21343
STC: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b472d420ebc5978f4be3e4d
LLR: 3.23 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 44380 W: 10201 L: 9841 D: 24338
I think I reached the limit of the fishtest framework. It frequently
crashed at 2 million games already. The small values also moved a lot
throughout the entire tuning session though with smaller margin. The
passed danger and close enemies values seems the most sensitive (changing
close enemies alone to 6 failed before but now it passes), whether or not
they are close to optimal I don't know, but it seems some parameters are
also correlated to others.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1670
bench: 5103722
In the current master, ThreatByKing is an array of two Scores, one for
when we have a single attack and one for when we have many. The latter
case is very rarely called during bench and was recently given a strange
negative value during a tuning run, as pointed out by @candirufish on
commit efd4ca2. Here, we simplify away this second case entirely, and
increase the remaining ThreatByKing to compensate.
Although I derived the parameter tweak independently, with the goal of
preserving the same average bonus, I later noticed that a very similar
Score had already been derived by an ongoing SPSA tuning session.
I therefore recognize @candirufish for first discovering these values.
I would also like to thank @Rocky640 for valuable feedback that pointed
me in the direction of ThreatByKing.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 7677 W: 1772 L: 1623 D: 4282
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b3db0320ebc5902b9ffe97a
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 108031 W: 18329 L: 18350 D: 71352
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b3dbf4b0ebc5902b9ffe9db
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1666
Bench: 4678861
In current master, the function make_bitboard() does nothing apart from
helping initialize the SquareBB[] array. This seems like an unnecessary
abstraction layer.
The advantage of make_bitboard() is we can define a bitboard, in a simple
and general way, not only from a single square but also from a list of
squares. It is more elegant, faster and readable than combining multiple
SquareBB explicitly, but the last complex use case in evaluation was
simplified away a few months ago.
If make_bitboard() becomes useful again to define complicated bitboards,
it will be easy enough to reintroduce it using this pull request as
an implementation reference.
No functional change.
Make sure each piece is not scored more than once as a passed pawn "hinderer",
by scoring only the blockers along the passed pawn path. Inspired by TCEC Game 29.
Passed STC as a simplification
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b3016d00ebc5902b2e58552
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 75388 W: 16656 L: 16641 D: 42091
Passed LTC as a simplification
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b302ed90ebc5902b2e587fc
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 49157 W: 8460 L: 8386 D: 32311
Current master was also counting the number of attacks along a passed pawn path,
which might be misleading:
a) a defender might be counted many times for the same pawn path. For example a
White rook on a1 attacking a black pawn on a7 would score the bonus * 6 but
would be probably better placed on a8
b) a defender might be counted on different pawn paths and might be overloaded. For
example a Ke4 or Qe4 against pawns on d6 and f6 would score the bonus * 6.
Counting each blocker or attacker only once is more complicated, and does not help
either: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b2ff1cb0ebc5902b2e582b2
After this small simplification, there might be ways to increase the HinderPassedPawn
penalty.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1661
Bench: 4520519
Silences the following warnings when compiling with GCC 8.
The fix is to use an intermediate pointer to anonymous function:
```
misc.cpp: In function 'int WinProcGroup::get_group(size_t)':
misc.cpp:241:77: warning: cast between incompatible function types from 'FARPROC' {aka 'long long int (*)()'} to 'fun1_t' {aka 'bool (*)(_LOGICAL_PROCESSOR_RELATIONSHIP, _SYSTEM_LOGICAL_PROCESSOR_INFORMATION_EX*, long unsigned int*)'} [-Wcast-function-type]
auto fun1 = (fun1_t)GetProcAddress(k32, "GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx");
^
misc.cpp: In function 'void WinProcGroup::bindThisThread(size_t)':
misc.cpp:309:71: warning: cast between incompatible function types from 'FARPROC' {aka 'long long int (*)()'} to 'fun2_t' {aka 'bool (*)(short unsigned int, _GROUP_AFFINITY*)'} [-Wcast-function-type]
auto fun2 = (fun2_t)GetProcAddress(k32, "GetNumaNodeProcessorMaskEx");
^
misc.cpp:310:67: warning: cast between incompatible function types from 'FARPROC' {aka 'long long int (*)()'} to 'fun3_t' {aka 'bool (*)(void*, const _GROUP_AFFINITY*, _GROUP_AFFINITY*)'} [-Wcast-function-type]
auto fun3 = (fun3_t)GetProcAddress(k32, "SetThreadGroupAffinity");
^
```
No functional change.
Compiling the current master with MSVC gives the following error:
```
search.cpp(956): error C2660: 'operator *': function does not take 1 arguments
types.h(303): note: see declaration of 'operator *'
```
This was introduced in commit:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/commit/88de112b84a5285c2afb3e075a05c2ab8ad3fd33
We use a suggestion by @vondele to fix the error, thanks!
No functional change.
[STC](http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b2614000ebc5902b8d17193)
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17733 W: 3996 L: 3866 D: 9871
[LTC](http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b264d0f0ebc5902b8d17206)
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 55524 W: 9535 L: 9471 D: 36518
Use pawn count scaling also for opposite bishops endings with additional material, with a slope of 2 instead of 7. This simplifies slightly the code.
This PR is a functionally equivalent refactoring of the version which was submitted.
Four versions tried, 2 passed both STC and LTC. I picked the one which seemed more promising at LTC.
Slope 4 passed STC (-0.54 Elo), LTC not attempted
Slope 3 passed STC (+2.51 Elo), LTC (-0.44 Elo)
Slope 2 passed STC (+2.09 Elo), LTC (+0.04 Elo)
Slope 1 passed STC (+0.90 Elo), failed LTC (-3.40 Elo)
Bench: 4761613
I believe using foward_file_bb() here is fewer instructions.
a) Fewer instructions and probably more clear (debatable).
b) Possible that a lookup is slower than a few local operations, but the
forward_file_bb table is probably used often enough that it is always
cached.
Passed
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 21004 W: 4263 L: 4141 D: 12600
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b1cad830ebc5902ab9c6239
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1644
No functional change.
After a helpful suggestion from AppVeyor support staff, moving the Stockfish
execution from ps to cmd seems to work. Alternative to PR #1624 tested in PR #1637.
No functional change.
The '- 1' subtrahend was introduced for guarding against null move
search at root, which would be nonsense. But this is actually already
guaranteed by the !PvNode condition. This followed from the discussion
in pull request 1609: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1609
No functional change
The function Position::has_repeated() is used by Tablebases::root_probe()
to determine whether we can rank all winning moves with the same value, or
if we need to strictly rank by dtz in case the position has already been
repeated once, and we are risking to run into the 50-move rule and thus
losing the win (especially critical in some very complicated endgames).
To check whether the current position or one of the previous positions
after the last zeroing move has already been occured once, we start looking
for a repetition of the current position, and if that is not the case, we
step one position back and repeat the check for that position, and so on.
If you now look at how this was done before the new root ranking patch was
merged two months ago, it seems quite obvious that it is a simple oversight:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/commit/108f0da4d7f993732aa2e854b8f3fa8ca6d3b46c
More specifically, after we stepped one position back with
```
stc = stc->previous;
```
we now have to start checking for a repetition with
```
StateInfo* stp = stc->previous->previous;
```
and not with
```
StateInfo* stp = st->previous->previous;
```
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1625
No functional change
Fix an error when compiling current master with MSVC due to the
ambiguity of which operator* overload was intended (reported by
Jarrod Torriero).
No functional change.
Makes sure the potential benefit of first touch does not depend on
the order of the UCI commands Threads and Hash, by reallocating the
hash if a Threads is issued. The cost is zeroing the TT once more
than needed. In case the prefered order (first Threads than Hash)
is employed, this amounts to zeroing the default sized TT (16Mb),
which is essentially instantaneous.
Follow up for https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1601
where additional data and discussion is available.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1620
No functional change.
Stockfish currently takes a while to clear the TT when using larger hash sizes.
On one machine with 128 GB hash it takes about 50 seconds with a single thread,
allowing it to use all allocated cores brought that time down to 4 seconds on
some Linux systems. The patch was further tested on Windows and refined with
NUMA binding of the hash initializing threads (we refer to pull request #1601
for the complete discussion and the speed measurements).
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1601
No functional change
I was able to get this to pass which reduces BlockedByPawn to one dimension
with NO distance from edge offset.
GOOD) It's more simple and may provide additional clarity for further
simplifications. Facilitates migrating unblocked to one dimension as well.
BAD) If there is indeed a distance component to BlockedStorm (may or may
not be the case), this obfuscates this component into ShelterStrength and
UnblockedStorm. This may be more convoluted. Also, it may be more convenient
to have each of the three arrays (ShelterStrength, BlockedStorm, and UnBlocked)
be the same size.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 96173 W: 19326 L: 19343 D: 57504
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b04544d0ebc5914abc12965
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 49818 W: 7441 L: 7363 D: 35014
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b0487d50ebc5914abc12990
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1611
Bench: 5133208
define Color us and use this instead of pos.side_to_move() and nmp_odd. The latter allows to clarify the nmp verification criterion.
Tested for no regression:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 76713 W: 15303 L: 15284 D: 46126
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b046a0d0ebc5914abc12971
No functional change.
Simplifying away all the progressKey stuff gives exactly the same bench,
without any speed impact. Tested for speed against master with two benches
at depth 22 ran in parallel:
**testedpatch**
Total time (ms) : 92350
Nodes searched : 178962949
Nodes/second : 1937877
**master**
Total time (ms) : 92358
Nodes searched : 178962949
Nodes/second : 1937709
We also tested the patch at STC for no-regression with [-3, 1] bounds:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 57299 W: 11529 L: 11474 D: 34296
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b015a1c0ebc5914abc126e5
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1603
No functional change.
Default template parameters values and recursive functions do not play well
together. Fix for below errors that showed up after updating to latest MSVC.
````
tbprobe.cpp(1156): error C2672:
'search': no matching overloaded function found
tbprobe.cpp(1198): error C2783:
'Tablebases::WDLScore `anonymous-namespace'::search(Position &,Tablebases::ProbeState *)':
could not deduce template argument for 'CheckZeroingMoves'
````
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1594
No functional change.
A position which has a move which draws by repetition, or which could have
been reached from an earlier position in the game tree, is considered to be
at least a draw for the side to move.
Cycle detection algorithm by Marcel van Kervink:
https://marcelk.net/2013-04-06/paper/upcoming-rep-v2.pdf
----------------------------
How does the algorithm work in practice? The algorithm is an efficient
method to detect if the side to move has a drawing move, without doing any
move generation, thus possibly giving a cheap cutoffThe most interesting
conditions are both on line 1195:
```
if ( originalKey == (progressKey ^ stp->key)
|| progressKey == Zobrist::side)
```
This uses the position keys as a sort-of Bloom filter, to avoid the expensive
checks which follow. For "upcoming repetition" consider the opening Nf3 Nf6 Ng1.
The XOR of this position's key with the starting position gives their difference,
which can be used to look up black's repeating move (Ng8). But that look-up is
expensive, so line 1195 checks that the white pieces are on their original squares.
This is the subtlest part of the algorithm, but the basic idea in the above game
is there are 4 positions (starting position and the one after each move). An XOR
of the first pair (startpos and after Nf3) gives a key matching Nf3. An XOR of
the second pair (after Nf6 and after Ng1) gives a key matching the move Ng1. But
since the difference in each pair is the location of the white knight those keys
are "identical" (not quite because while there are 4 keys the the side to move
changed 3 times, so the keys differ by Zobrist::side). The loop containing line
1195 does this pair-wise XOR-ing.
Continuing the example, after line 1195 determines that the white pieces are
back where they started we still need to make sure the changes in the black
pieces represents a legal move. This is done by looking up the "moveKey" to
see if it corresponds to possible move, and that there are no pieces blocking
its way. There is the additional complication that, to match the behavior of
is_draw(), if the repetition is not inside the search tree then there must be
an additional repetition in the game history. Since a position can have more
than one upcoming repetition a simple count does not suffice. So there is a
search loop ending on line 1215.
On the other hand, the "no-progress' is the same thing but offset by 1 ply.
I like the concept but think it currently has minimal or negative benefit,
and I'd be happy to remove it if that would get the patch accepted. This
will not, however, save many lines of code.
-----------------------------
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 36430 W: 7446 L: 7150 D: 21834
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5afc123f0ebc591fdf408dfc
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 12998 W: 2045 L: 1876 D: 9077
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5afc2c630ebc591fdf408e0c
How could we continue after the patch:
• The code in search() that checks for cycles has numerous possible variants.
Perhaps the check need could be done in qsearch() too.
• The biggest improvement would be to get "no progress" to be of actual benefit,
and it would be helpful understand why it (probably) isn't. Perhaps there is an
interaction with the transposition table or the (fantastically complex) tree
search. Perhaps this would be hard to fix, but there may be a simple oversight.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1575
Bench: 4550412
At PvNodes allow bonus for prior counter move that caused a fail low
for depth 1 and 2. Note : I did a speculative LTC on yellow STC patch
since history stats tend to be highly TC sensitive
STC (Yellow):
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 64295 W: 13042 L: 12873 D: 38380
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af507c80ebc5968e6524153
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 22407 W: 3413 L: 3211 D: 15783
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af85dd40ebc591fdf408b87
Also use local variable excludedMove in NMP (marotear)
Bench: 5294316
Use the whole kingRing for pawn attackers instead of only the squares directly
around the king. This tends to give quite a lot more kingAttackersCount, so to
compensate and to avoid raising the king danger too fast we lower the values
in the KingAttackWeights array a little bit.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 51892 W: 10723 L: 10369 D: 30800
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af6d4dd0ebc5968e652428e
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 24536 W: 3737 L: 3515 D: 17284
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af709890ebc5968e65242ac
Credits to user @xoroshiro for the idea of using the kingRing for pawn attackers.
How to continue? It seems that the KingAttackWeights[] array stores values
which are quite Elo-sensitive, yet they have not been tuned with SPSA recently.
There might be easy Elo points to get there.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1597
Bench: 5282815
Simplification: in king danger, include all blockers and not only pinned
pieces, since blockers enemy pieces can result in discovered checks which
are also bad.
STC http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af35f9f0ebc5968e6523fe9
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 145781 W: 29368 L: 29478 D: 86935
LTC http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af3cb430ebc5968e652401f
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 76398 W: 11272 L: 11232 D: 53894
I also incorrectly scheduled STC with [0,5] which it failed.
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af283c00ebc5968e6523f33
LLR: -2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 12338 W: 2451 L: 2522 D: 7365
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1593
bench: 4698290
----------------------------------------
Thanks to @vondele and @Rocky640 for a cleaner version of the patch,
and the following comments!
> Most of the pinned, (or for this pull request, blocking) squares were
> already computed in the unsafeChecks, the only missing squares being:
>
> a) squares attacked by a Queen which are occupied by friendly piece
> or "unsafe". Note that adding such squares never passed SPRT[0,5].
>
> b) squares not in mobilityArea[Us].
>
> There is a strong relationship between the blockers and the unsafeChecks,
> but the bitboard unsafeChecks is still useful when the checker is not
> aligned with the king, and the checking square is occupied by friendly
> piece or is "unsafe". This is always the case for the Knight.
This patch simplifies the control flow in search(), removing an if
and a goto. A side effect of the patch is that Stockfish is now a
little bit more selective at low depths, because we allow razoring,
futility pruning and probcut pruning after a null move.
passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 32035 W: 6523 L: 6422 D: 19090
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af142ca0ebc597fb3d39bb6
passed LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 41431 W: 6187 L: 6097 D: 29147
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af148770ebc597fb3d39bc1
Ideas for further work:
• Use the nodes credit opened by the patch (the increased selectivity)
to try somewhat higher razoring, futility or probcut margins at [0..4].
Bench: 4855031
We can view the patch version as adding some "undermining bonus" for
level pawns, when the defending side can not easily avoid the exchange
by advancing her pawn.
• Case 1) White b2,c3, Black a3,b3:
Black is breaking through, b2 deserves a penalty
• Case 2) White b2,c3, Black a3,c4:
if b2xa3 then White ends up with a weak pawn on a3
and probably a weak pawn on c3 too.
In either case, White can still not safely play b2-b3 and make a
phalanx with c3, which is the essence of a backward pawn definition.
Passed STC in SPRT[0, 4]:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 131169 W: 26523 L: 26199 D: 78447
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aefa4d50ebc5902a409a151
ELO 1.19 [-0.38,2.88] (95%)
Passed LTC in SPRT[-3, 1]:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 24824 W: 3732 L: 3617 D: 17475
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af04d3f0ebc5902a88b2e55
ELO 1.27 [-1.21,3.70] (95%)
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1584
How to continue from there?
There were some promising tests a couple of months ago about adding
a lever condition for king danger in evaluate.cpp, maybe it would
be time to re-try this after all the recent changes in pawns.cpp
Bench: 4773882
The two lines of code in the patch seem to be just as good as master.
1. We now only look at the current square to see if it is currently backward,
whereas master looks there AND further ahead in the current file (master would
declare a pawn "backward" even though it could still safely advance a little).
This simplification allows us to avoid the use of the difficult logic with
`backmost_sq(Us, neighbours | stoppers)`.
2. The condition `relative_rank(Us,s) < RANK_5` is simplified away.
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 68132 W: 14025 L: 13992 D: 40115
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aedc97a0ebc5902a4099fd6
Passed LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 23789 W: 3643 L: 3527 D: 16619
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aee4f970ebc5902a409a03a
Ideas for further work:
• The new code flags some pawns on the 5th rank as backward, which was not the
case in the old master. So maybe we should test a version with that included?
• Further tweaks of the backward condition with [0..5] bounds?
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1583
Bench: 5122789
When we are using the "Bitboard + Square" overloaded operators,
the compiler uses the interpediate SquareBB[s] to transform the
square into a Bitboard, and then calculate the result.
For instance, the following code:
```
b = pos.pieces(Us, PAWN) & s
```
generates in fact the code:
```
b = pos.pieces(Us, PAWN) & SquareBB[s]`
```
The bug introduced by Stéphane in the previous patch was the
use of `b = pos.pieces(Us, PAWN) & (s + Up)` which can result
in out-of-bounds errors for the SquareBB[] array if s in the
last rank of the board.
We coorect the bug, and also add some asserts in bitboard.h to
make the code more robust for this particular bug in the future.
Bug report by Joost VandeVondele. Thanks!
Bench: 5512000
Simplification: remove BlockedByKing from storm array and use a special rule.
The BlockedByKing section in the storm array is substantially similar to the
Unopposed section except for two extreme values V(-290), V(-274). Turns out
removing BlockedByKing and using a special rule for these two values shows
no Elo loss. All the other values in the BlockedByKing section are apparently
irrelevant. BlockedByKing now falls under unopposed which (to me) is a bit
more logical since there is no defending pawn on this file. Also, retuning
the Unopposed section may be another improvement.
GOOD) This is a simplification because the entire BlockedByKing section of
the storm array goes away reducing a few lines of code (and less values to
tune). This also brings clarity because the special rule is self documenting.
BAD) It takes execution time to apply the special rule. This should be negli-
gible because it is based on a template parameter and is boiled down to two
bitwise AND's.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 33470 W: 6820 L: 6721 D: 19929
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ae7b6e60ebc5926dba90e13
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 47627 W: 7045 L: 6963 D: 33619
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ae859ff0ebc5926dba90e85
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1574
Bench: 5512000
-----------
How to continue after this patch?
This patch may open the possibility to move the special rule to evaluate.cpp
in the evaluate::king() function, where we could refine the rule using king
danger information. For instance, with a king in H2 blocking an opponent pawn
in H3, it may be critical to know that the opponent has no safe check in G2
before giving the bonus :-)
This is a further step in the long quest for a simple way of determining
scale factors for the endgame.
Here we remove the artificial restriction in evaluate_scale_factor()
based on endgame score. Also SCALE_FACTOR_ONEPAWN can be simplified
away. The latter is a small non functional simplification with respect
to the version that was testedin the framework, verified on bench with
depth 22 for good measure.
Passed STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 49438 W: 9999 L: 9930 D: 29509
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ae20c8b0ebc5963175205c8
Passed LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 101445 W: 15113 L: 15110 D: 71222
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ae2a0560ebc5902a1998986
How to continue from there?
Maybe the general case could be scaled with pawns from both colors
without losing Elo. If that is the case, then this could be merged
somehow with the scaling in evaluate_initiative(), which also uses
a additive malus down when the number of pawns in the position goes
down.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1570
Bench: 5254862
Currently the make strip target is broken on mingw as the exe name is wrong (stockfish instead of stockfish.exe).
Needs some testing by mingw users (both profile-build and strip, native and cross).
No functional change.
Queen was recently excluded from the mobility area of friendly minor
pieces. Exclude queen also from the mobility area of friendly majors too.
Run as a simplification:
STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ade396f0ebc59602d053742
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 46972 W: 9511 L: 9437 D: 28024
LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ade64b50ebc5949f20a24d3
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 66855 W: 10157 L: 10105 D: 46593
How to continue from there?
The mobilityArea is used in various places of the evaluation as a
soft proxy for "not attacked by the opponent pawns". Now that the
mobility area is getting smaller and smaller, it may be worth to
hunt for Elo gains by trying the more direct ~attackedBy[Them][PAWN]
instead of mobilityArea[Us] in these places.
Bench: 4650572
Remove the distinction between the king file and the two neighbours
files in the ShelterStrength[] array. Instead we initialize the safety
variable in the evaluate_shelter() function with a -10 penalty if our
king is on a semi-open file (ie. if our king is on a file without a pawn
protection).
Also rename shelter_storm() to evaluate_shelter() while there.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 23153 W: 4795 L: 4677 D: 13681
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5adcb83d0ebc595ec7ff8aa7
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 25728 W: 3934 L: 3821 D: 17973
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5adcdcb60ebc595ec7ff8adb
See the commit history in PR#1559 for the proof that the committed
version is equivalent to the version in the tests above:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1559
Full credit to @protonspring for the renormalized values of the
ShelterStrength[] array used for the simplification. Thanks!
Bench: 4703935
Change the operators of the Option type in uci.h to accept floating
point numbers in double precision on input as the numerical type for
the "spin" values of the UCI protocol.
The output of Stockfish after the "uci" command is unaffected.
This change is compatible with all the existing GUI (as they will
continue sending integers that we can interpret as doubles in SF),
and allows us to pass double parameters to Stockfish in the console
via the "setoption" command. This will be useful if we implement
another tuner as an alternative for SPSA.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1556
No functional change.
---------------------
A example of the new functionality in action in the branch `tune_float2'`:
https://github.com/snicolet/Stockfish/commit/876c322d0f20ee232da977b4d3489c4cc929765e
I have added the following lines in ucioptions.cpp:
```C++
void on_pi(const Option& o)
{
double x = Options["PI"]; // or double x = o;
std::cerr << "received value is x = " << x << std::endl;
}
...
o["PI"] << Option(3.1415926, -10000000, 10000000, on_pi);
```
Then I can change the value of Pi in Stockfish via the command line, and
check that Stockfish understands a floating point:
````
> ./stockfish
> setoption name PI value 2.7182818284
received value is x = 2.71828
````
On output, the default value of Pi is truncated to 3 (to remain compatible
with the UCI protocol and GUIs):
````
> uci
[...]
option name SyzygyProbeLimit type spin default 6 min 0 max 6
option name PI type spin default 3 min -10000000 max 10000000
uciok
````
This patch is non-functional. Current master does four operations to determine
whether an enemy pawn on this file is blocked by the king or not
```
f == file_of(ksq) && rkThem == relative_rank(Us, ksq) + 1 )
```
By adding a direction (based on the template color), this is reduced to two
operations. This works because b is limited to enemy pawns that are ahead of
the king and on the current file.
```
shift<Down>(b) & ksq
```
I've added a line of code, but the number of executing instructions is reduced
(I think). I'm not sure if this counts as a simplification, but it should
theoretically be a little faster (barely). The code line length is also reduced
making it a little easier to read.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1552
No functional change.
This patch corrects both MultiPV behaviour and "go searchmoves" behaviour
for tablebases.
We change the logic of table base probing at root positions from filtering
to ranking. The ranking code is much more straightforward than the current
filtering code (this is a simplification), and also more versatile.
If the root is a TB position, each root move is probed and assigned a TB score
and a TB rank. The TB score is the Value to be displayed to the user for that
move (unless the search finds a mate score), while the TB rank determines which
moves should appear higher in a multi-pv search. In game play, the engine will
always pick a move with the highest rank.
Ranks run from -1000 to +1000:
901 to 1000 : TB win
900 : normally a TB win, in rare cases this could be a draw
1 to 899 : cursed TB wins
0 : draw
-1 to -899 : blessed TB losses
-900 : normally a TB loss, in rare cases this could be a draw
-901 to -1000 : TB loss
Normally all winning moves get rank 1000 (to let the search pick the best
among them). The exception is if there has been a first repetition. In that
case, moves are ranked strictly by DTZ so that the engine will play a move
that lowers DTZ (and therefore cannot repeat the position a second time).
Losing moves get rank -1000 unless they have relatively high DTZ, meaning
they have some drawing chances. Those get ranks towards -901 (when they
cross -900 the draw is certain).
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1467
No functional change (without tablebases).
This patch introduces an Analysis Contempt UCI combo box to control
the behaviour of contempt during analysis. The possible values are
Both, Off, White, Black. Technically, the engine is supposed to be in
analysis mode if UCI_AnalyseMode is set by the graphical user interface
or if the user has chosen infinite analysis mode ("go infinite").
Credits: the idea for the combo box is due to Michel Van den Bergh.
No functional change (outside analysis mode).
-----------------------------------------------------
The so-called "contempt" is an optimism value that the engine adds
to one color to avoid simplifications and keep tension in the position
during its search. It was introduced in Stockfish 9 and seemed to give
good results during the TCEC 11 tournament (Stockfish seemed to play a
little bit more actively than in previous seasons).
The patch does not change the play during match or blitz play, but gives
more options for correspondance players to decide for which color(s) they
would like to use contempt in analysis mode (infinite time). Here is a
description of the various options:
* Both : in analysis mode, use the contempt for both players (alternating)
* Off : in analysis mode, use the contempt for none of the players
* White : in analysis mode, White will play actively, Black will play passively
* Black : in analysis mode, Black will play actively, White will play passively
This patch adds some documentation and code cleanup to tablebase code.
It took me some time to understand the relation among the differrent
structs, although I have rewrote them fully in the past. So I wrote
some detailed documentation to avoid the same efforts for future readers.
Also noteworthy is the use a standard hash table implementation with a
more efficient 1D array instead of a 2D array. This reduces the average
lookup steps of 90% (from 343 to 38 in a bench 128 1 16 run) and reduces
also the table from 5K to 4K
entries.
I have tested on 5-men and no functional and no slowdown reported. It
should be verified on 6-men that the new hash does not overflow. It is
enough to run ./stockfish with 6-men available: if it does not assert at
startup it means everything is ok with 6-men too.
EDIT: verified for 6-men tablebase by Jörg Oster. Thanks!
No functional change.
We remove an unnecessary condition in the definition of safe squares
in the space evaluation. Only the squares which are occupied by our
pawns or attacked by our opponent's pawns are now excluded.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 21096 W: 4321 L: 4199 D: 12576
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5acbf7510ebc59547e537d4e
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 23437 W: 3577 L: 3460 D: 16400
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5acc0f750ebc59547e537d6a
It may be possible to further refine the definition of such safe squares.
Bench: 5351765
This patch applies a S(10, 5) bonus for every square that is:
- Occupied by an enemy piece which is not a pawn
- Attacked exactly once by our pieces
- Defended exactly once by enemy pieces
The idea is that these pieces must be defended. Their defenders have
dramatically limited mobility, and they are vulnerable to our future
attack.
As with connectivity, there are probably many more tests to be run in
this area. In particular:
- I believe @snicolet's queen overload tests have demonstrated a potential
need for a queen overload bonus above and beyond this one; however, the
conditions for "overload" in this patch are different (excluding pieces
we attack twice). My next test after this is (hopefully) merged will be
to intersect the Bitboard I define here with the enemy's queen attacks and
attempt to give additional bonus.
- Perhaps we should exclude pieces attacked by pawns--can pawns really be
overloaded? Should they have the same weight, or less? This didn't work
with a previous version, but it could work with this one.
- More generally, different pieces may need more or less bonus. We could
change bonuses based on what type of enemy piece is being overloaded, what
type of friendly piece is attacking, and/or what type of piece is being
defended by the overloaded piece and attacked by us, or any intersection
of these three. For example, here attacked/defended pawns are excluded,
but they're not totally worthless targets, and could be added again with
a smaller bonus.
- This list is by no means exhaustive.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 17439 W: 3599 L: 3390 D: 10450
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac78a2e0ebc59435923735e
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 43304 W: 6533 L: 6256 D: 30515
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac7a1d80ebc59435923736f
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1533
Bench: 5248871
----------------
This is my first time opening a PR, so I apologize if there are errors.
There are too many people to thank since I submitted my first test just
over a month ago. Thank you all for the warm welcome and here is to more
green patches!
In particular, I would like to thank:
- @crossbr, whose comment in a FishCooking thread first inspired me to
consider the overloading of pieces other than queens,
- @snicolet, whose queen overload tests inspired this one and served as
the base of my first overload attempts,
- @protonspring, whose connectivity tests inspired this one and who provided
much of the feedback needed to take this from red to green,
- @vondele, who kindly corrected me when I submitted a bad LTC test,
- @Rocky640, who has helped me over and over again in the past month.
Thank you all!
In master, we already remove the King from the mobility area of minor pieces
because the King simply stands in the way of other pieces, and since opponent
cannot capture the King, any piece which "protects" the King cannot recapture.
Similarly, this patch introduces the idea that it is rarely a need for a Queen
to be "protected" by a minor (unless it is attacked only by a Queen, in fact).
We used to have a LoosePiece bonus, and in a similar vein the Queen was excluded
from that penalty.
Idea came when reviewing an old game of Kholmov. He was a very good midgame
player, but in the opening his misplace his Queen (and won in the end :-) :
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1134645
Both white queen moves 10.Qd3 and 13.Qb3 are in the way of some minor piece.
I would prefer to not give a bishop mobility bonus at move 10 for the square d3,
or later a knight mobility bonus at move 13 for the square b3. And the textbook
move is 19.Qe3! which prepares 20.Nb3. This short game sample shows how much a
queen can be "in the way" of minor pieces.
STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac2c15f0ebc591746423fa3
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 22066 W: 4561 L: 4330 D: 13175
LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac2d6500ebc591746423faf
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 25871 W: 3953 L: 3738 D: 18180
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1532
Ideas for future work in this area:
• tweak some more mobility areas for other piece type.
• construct a notion of global mobility for the whole piece set.
• bad bishops.
Bench: 4989125
Simplify ThreatBySafePawn evaluation by removing the 'if (weak)' speed
optimization check from threats evaluation. This is a non functional
change as it removes just a speed optimization conditional which was
probably useful before but does no longer provide benefits. This section
section had a few more lines not long ago, with ThreatByHangingPawn and
a loop through the threatened pieces, but now there is not much left.
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 47775 W: 9696 L: 9624 D: 28455
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac298910ebc591746423f8b
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1531
Non functional change.
1) Use make_bitboard() in Bitboards::init()
2) Fix MSVC warning: search.h(85): warning C4244: '=': conversion from
'TimePoint' to 'int', possible loss of data.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1524
No functional change.
When we reach a position with only two opposite colored bishops and
one pawn on the board, current master would give it a scale factor
of 9/64=0.14 in about one position out of 7200, and a scale factor
of 0.0 in the 7199 others. The patch gives a scale factor of 0.0 in
100% of the cases.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 55845 W: 11467 L: 11410 D: 32968
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5abc585f0ebc5902926cf15e
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 11915 W: 1852 L: 1719 D: 8344
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5abc7f750ebc5902926cf18c
We also have exhaustive coverage analysis of this patch effect by
Alain Savard, comparing the perfect evaluation given by the Syzygy
tablebase with the heuristic play after this patch for the set of
all legal positions of the KBPKP endgame with opposite bishops, in
the comments thread for this pull request:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1520
Alain's conclusion:
> According to this definition and the data, I consider this PR is
> identical to master to "solve for draw" and slightly better than
> master to solve earlier for "wins".
Note: this patch is a side effect of an ongoing effort to improve
the evaluation of positions involving a pair of opposite bishops.
See the GitHub diff of this LTC test which almost passed at sprt[0..5]
for a discussion:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab9030b0ebc5902932cbf93
No functional change (at small bench depths)
Include some not fully supported levers in the (candidate) passed pawns
bitboard, if otherwise unblocked. Maybe levers are usually very short
lived, and some inaccuracy in the lever balance for the definition of
candidate passed pawns just triggers a deeper search.
Here is a example of a case where the patch has an effect on the definition
of candidate passers: White c5/e5 pawns, against Black d6 pawn. Let's say
we want to test if e5 is a candidate passer. The previous master looks
only at files d, e and f (which is already very good) and reject e5 as
a candidate. However, the lever d6 is challenged by 2 pawns, so it should
not fully count. Indirectly, this patch will view such case (and a few more)
to be scored as candidates.
STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5abcd55d0ebc5902926cf1e1
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 16492 W: 3419 L: 3198 D: 9875
LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5abce1360ebc5902926cf1e6
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 21156 W: 3201 L: 2990 D: 14965
This was inspired by this test of Jerry Donald Watson, except the case of
zero supporting pawns against two levers is excluded, and it seems that
not excluding that case is bad, while excluding is it beneficial. See the
following tests on fishtest:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1519http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5abccd850ebc5902926cf1ddhttp://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5abcdd490ebc5902926cf1e4
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1521
Bench: 5568461
----
Comments by Jerry Donald Watson:
> My thinking as to why this works:
>
> The evaluation is either called in an interior node or in the qsearch.
> The calls at the end of the qsearch are the more important as they
> ultimately determine the scoring of each move, whereas the internal
> values are mainly used for pruning decisions with a margin. Some strong
> engines don't even call the eval at all nodes. Now the whole point of
> the qsearch is to find quiet positions where captures do not change the
> evaluation of the position with regards to the search bounds - i.e. if
> there were good captures they would be tried.* So when a candidate lever
> appears in the evaluation at the end of the qsearch, the qsearch has
> guaranteed that it cannot just be captured, or if it can, this does not
> take the score past the search bounds. Practically this may mean that
> the side with the candidate lever has the turn, or perhaps the stopping
> lever pawn is pinned, or that side is forced for other reasons to make
> some other move (e.g. d6 can only take one of the pawns in the example
> above).
>
> Hence granting the full score for only one lever defender makes some
> sense, at least, to me.
>
> IMO this is also why huge bonuses for possible captures in the evaluation
> (e.g. threat on queen and our turn), etc. don't tend to work. Such things
> are best left to the search to figure out.
We now use per-thread dynamic contempt. This patch has the following
effects:
* for Threads=1: **non-functional**
* for Threads>1:
* with MultiPV=1: **no regression, little to no ELO gain**
* with MultiPV>1: **clear improvement over master**
First, I tried testing at standard MultiPV=1 play with [0,5] bounds.
This yielded 2 yellow and 1 red test:
5+0.05, Threads=5:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 82689 W: 16439 L: 16190 D: 50060
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa93a5a0ebc5902952892e6
5+0.05, Threads=8:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 27164 W: 4974 L: 4983 D: 17207
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab2639b0ebc5902a6fbefd5
5+0.5, Threads=16:
LLR: -2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 41396 W: 7127 L: 7082 D: 27187
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab124220ebc59029516cb62
Then, I tested with Skill Level=17 (implicitly MutliPV=4), showing
a clear improvement:
5+0.05, Threads=5:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 3498 W: 1316 L: 1135 D: 1047
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab4b6580ebc5902932aeca2
Next, I tested the patch with MultiPV=1 again, this time checking for
non-regression ([-3, 1]):
5+0.5, Threads=5:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 65575 W: 12786 L: 12745 D: 40044
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab4e8500ebc5902932aecb3
Finally, I ran some tests with fixed number of games, checking if
reverting dynamic contempt gains more elo with Skill Level=17 (i.e.
MultiPV) than applying the "prevScore" fix and this patch. These tests
showed, that this patch gains 15 ELO when playing with Skill Level=17:
5+0.05, Threads=3, "revert dynamic contempt" vs. "WITHOUT this patch":
ELO: -11.43 +-4.1 (95%) LOS: 0.0%
Total: 20000 W: 7085 L: 7743 D: 5172
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab636450ebc590295d88536
5+0.05, Threads=3, "revert dynamic contempt" vs. "WITH this patch":
ELO: -26.42 +-4.1 (95%) LOS: 0.0%
Total: 20000 W: 6661 L: 8179 D: 5160
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab62e680ebc590295d88524
---
***FAQ***
**Why should this be commited?**
I believe that the gain for multi-thread MultiPV search is a sufficient
justification for this otherwise neutral change. I also believe this
implementation of dynamic contempt is more logical, although this may
be just my opinion.
**Why is per-thread contempt better at MultiPV?**
A likely explanation for the gain in MultiPV mode is that during
search each thread independently switches between rootMoves and via
the shared contempt score skews each other's evaluation.
**Why were the tests done with Skill Level=17?**
This was originally suggested by @Hanamuke and the idea is that with
Skill Level Stockfish sometimes plays also moves it thinks are slightly
sub-optimal and thus the quality of all moves offered by the MultiPV
search is checked by the test.
**Why are the ELO differences so huge?**
This is most likely because of the nature of Skill Level mode --
since it slower and weaker than normal mode, bugs in evaluation have
much greater effect.
---
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1515.
No functional change -- in single thread mode.
Extends valgrind/sanitizer testing to cover syzygy code.
The script downloads 4 man syzygy as needed. The time needed for the
additional testing is small (in fact hard to see a difference compared
to the large fluctuations in testing time in travis).
Possible follow-ups:
* include more TB sensitive positions in bench.
* include the test script of recent commit "Refactor tbprobe.cpp".
* verify unchanged bench with TB (with a long run).
* make the TB part of the continuation integration tests optional.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1518
and https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1490
No functional change.
Adjust criterion for applying extra reduction if not improving.
We now add an extra ply of reduction if r > 1.0, instead of the
previous condition Reductions[NonPV][imp][d][mc] >= 2.
Why does this work? Previously, reductions when not improving had
a discontinuity as the depth and/or move count increases due to the
Reductions[NonPV][imp][d][mc] >= 2 condition. Hence, values of r
such that 0.5 < r < 1.5 would be mapped to a reduction of 1, while
1.5 < r < 2.5 would be mapped to a reduction of 3. This patch allows
values of r satisfying 1.0 < r < 1.5 to be mapped to a reduction of 2,
making the reduction formula more continuous.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 35908 W: 7382 L: 7087 D: 21439
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aba723a0ebc5902a4743e8f
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 23087 W: 3584 L: 3378 D: 16125
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aba89070ebc5902a4743ea9
Ideas for future work:
- We could look at retuning the LMR formula.
- We could look at adjusting the reductions in PV nodes if not improving.
Bench: 5326261
Use rootMoves[PVIdx].previousScore instead of bestValue for
dynamic contempt. This is equivalent for MultiPV=1 (bench remained the
same, even for higher depths), but more correct for MultiPV.
STC (MultiPV=3):
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 2657 W: 1079 L: 898 D: 680
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aaa47cb0ebc590297330403
LTC (MultiPV=3):
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 2390 W: 874 L: 706 D: 810
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aaa593a0ebc59029733040b
VLTC 240+2.4 (MultiPV=3):
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 2399 W: 861 L: 694 D: 844
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aaf983e0ebc5902a182131f
LTC (MultiPV=4, Skill Level=17):
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 747 W: 333 L: 175 D: 239
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aabccee0ebc5902997ff006
Note: although the ELO differences seem huge, they are inflated by the
nature of Skill Level / MultiPV search, so I don't think they can be
reasonably compared with classic ELO strength.
See https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1491 for some
verifications searches with MultiPV = 10 at depths 12 and 24 from the
starting position and the position after 1.e4, comparing the outputs
of the full PV by the old master and by this patch.
No functional change for MultiPV=1
This involves:
* replacing the union hacks with simply reusing the EntryPiece arrays
for the no-pawns case
* merging the PairsData structure with the EntryPiece/-Pawn structs
(with credit to Marco: @mcostalba)
* simplifying some HashTable functions
* thanks to previous changes, removing the ugly memsets
* simplifying the template logic for WDL/DTZ distinction
(now we distinguish based on an enum type, not the entry classes)
* removing the unneeded Atomic wrapper
-----------------------------
For reference, here is a manual way to check that patches concerning
table bases code are non-functional changes:
0) Download the Syzygy table bases (up to 6 men).
1) Make sure you have branches master and the pull request pointing to
the right commits.
2) Download the bench calculation scripts from the following URL:
https://gist.github.com/WOnder93/b5fcf9c989b4a1715684d5c82367cdbe
and copy into src inside your Stockfish repo.
3) Make the scripts executable (chmod +x *.sh).
4) Run the following command to use TBs located at <path>:
export SYZYGY_PATH='<path>'
5) After that, run this (it will take a long time, this is a deep bench):
BENCH_ARGS='128 1 22' ./check_benches.sh master tbprobe_cleanup 2>/dev/null`
==> You should see two equal numbers printed.
(Of course, now we have to trust that the script itself is correct :)
-----------------------------
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1477
No functional change.
This is a patch to fix issue #1498, switching the time management variables
to 64 bits to avoid overflow of time variables after 25 days.
There was a bug in Stockfish 9 causing the output to be wrong after
2^31 milliseconds search. Here is a long run from the starting position:
info depth 64 seldepth 87 multipv 1 score cp 23 nodes 13928920239402
nps 0 tbhits 0 time -504995523 pv g1f3 d7d5 d2d4 g8f6 c2c4 d5c4 e2e3 e7e6 f1c4
c7c5 e1g1 b8c6 d4c5 d8d1 f1d1 f8c5 c4e2 e8g8 a2a3 c5e7 b2b4 f8d8 b1d2 b7b6 c1b2
c8b7 a1c1 a8c8 c1c2 c6e5 d1c1 c8c2 c1c2 e5f3 d2f3 a7a5 b4b5 e7c5 f3d4 d8c8 d4b3
c5d6 c2c8 b7c8 b3d2 c8b7 d2c4 d6c5 e2f3 b7d5 f3d5 e6d5 c4e5 a5a4 e5d3 f6e4 d3c5
e4c5 b2d4 c5e4 d4b6 e4d6 g2g4 d6b5 b6c5 b5c7 g1g2 c7e6 c5d6 g7g6
We check at compile time that the TimePoint type is exactly 64 bits long for
the compiler (TimePoint is our alias in Stockfish for std::chrono::milliseconds
-- it is a signed integer type of at least 45 bits according to the C++ standard,
but will most probably be implemented as a 64 bits signed integer on modern
compilers), and we use this TimePoint type consistently across the code.
Bug report by user "fischerandom" on the TCEC chat (thanks), and the
patch includes code and suggestions by user "WOnder93" and Ronald de Man.
Fixes issue: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/1498
Closes pull request: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1510
No functional change.
Make kingRing always eight squares, extending the bitboard to the
F file if the king is on the H file, and to the C file if the king
is on the A file. This may deal with cases where Stockfish (like
many other engines) would shift the king around on the back rank
like g1h1, not because there is some imminent threat, but because
it makes king safety look a little better just because the king ring
had a smaller area.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 34000 W: 7167 L: 6877 D: 19956
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab8216d0ebc5902932cbe64
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 22574 W: 3576 L: 3370 D: 15628
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab84e6a0ebc5902932cbe72
How to continue from there?
This patch probably makes it easier to tune the king safety evaluation,
because the new regularity of the king ring size will make the king
safety function more continuous.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1512
Bench: 5934103
Rewrite the MovePicker class using lambda expressions for move filtering.
Includes code style changes by @mcostalba.
Verified for speed, passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 43191 W: 9391 L: 9312 D: 24488
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a99b9df0ebc590297cc8f04
This rewrite of MovePicker.cpp seems to trigger less random crashes on Ryzen
machines than the version in previous master (reported by Bojun Guo).
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1454
No functional change.
To more clearly distinguish them from "const" local variables, this patch
defines compile-time local constants as constexpr. This is consistent with
the definition of PvNode as constexpr in search() and qsearch(). It also
makes the code more robust, since the compiler will now check that those
constants are indeed compile-time constants.
We can go even one step further and define all the evaluation and search
compile-time constants as constexpr.
In generate_castling() I replaced "K" with "step", since K was incorrectly
capitalised (in the Chess960 case).
In timeman.cpp I had to make the non-local constants MaxRatio and StealRatio
constepxr, since otherwise gcc would complain when calculating TMaxRatio and
TStealRatio. (Strangely, I did not have to make Is64Bit constexpr even though
it is used in ucioption.cpp in the calculation of constexpr MaxHashMB.)
I have renamed PieceCount to pieceCount in material.h, since the values of
the array are not compile-time constants.
Some compile-time constants in tbprobe.cpp were overlooked. Sides and MaxFile
are not compile-time constants, so were renamed to sides and maxFile.
Non-functional change.
Implements renaming suggestions by Marco Costalba, Günther Demetz,
Gontran Lemaire, Ronald de Man, Stéphane Nicolet, Alain Savard,
Joost VandeVondele, Jerry Donald Watson, Mike Whiteley, xoto10,
and I hope that I haven't forgotten anybody.
Perpetual renaming thread for suggestions:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/1426
No functional change.
If search depth is less than ONE_PLY call qsearch(), no need to check the
depth condition at various call sites of search().
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 14568 W: 3011 L: 2877 D: 8680
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa846190ebc59029781015b
Also helps gcc to find some optimizations (smaller binary, some speedup).
Thanks to Aram and Stefan for identifying an oversight in an early version.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1487
No functional change.
The NO_BSF does not cover any real life use-case today. The only compilers that
can compile SF today, with the current Makefile and no source code changes, are
either GCC compatible (define __GNUC__) or MSVC compatible (define _MSC_VER). So
they all support LSB/MSB intrinsics.
This patch simplifies away the software fall-backs of LSB/MSB that were still
in Stockfish code, but unused in any of the officially supported compilers.
Note the (legacy) MSVC/WIN32 case, where we use a 32-bit BSF/BSR solution, as
64-bit intrinsics aren't available there.
Discussed in: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1447
and: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1479
No functional change.
Adjust ProbCut rBeta by whether the score is improving, and also
set improving to false when in check. More precisely, this patch
has two parts:
1) the increased beta threshold for ProbCut is now adjusted based
on whether the score is improving
2) when in check, improving is always set to false.
Co-authored by Joost VandeVondele (@vondele) and Bill Henry (@VoyagerOne).
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 13480 W: 2840 L: 2648 D: 7992
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa693fe0ebc59029781004c
LTC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 25895 W: 4099 L: 3880 D: 17916
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa6ac940ebc59029781006e
In terms of opportunities for future work opened up by this patch,
the ProbCut rBeta formula could probably be tuned to gain more Elo.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1485
Bench: 5328254
King and pawn endgames are typically decisive, and a small
advantage is often sufficient to win. Therefore we now take
this into account when computing the initiative adjustment.
This idea came from a series of patches by Gian-Carlo Pascutto.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 48770 W: 10203 L: 9845 D: 28722
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa58cce0ebc59029780ff8d
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 22252 W: 3572 L: 3366 D: 15314
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa5b27c0ebc59029780ffad
Ideas for future developement:
- There have been a number of changes to the initiative
calculation lately. Perhaps the coefficients could be
tuned again.
- It may be possible to add special knowledge for other
endgames in the initiative calculation.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1481
Bench: 5750110
"Loose pieces drop, in blitz keep everything protected"
Adding a small S(2,2) bonus for knights, bishops, rooks, and
queens that are "connected" to each other (in the sense that
they are under attack by our own pieces) apparently is a good
thing. It probably helps the pieces work together a bit better.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 12317 W: 2655 L: 2467 D: 7195
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa2d86b0ebc590297cb6474
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 35725 W: 5516 L: 5263 D: 24946
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa2fc6f0ebc590297cb64a8
How to continue from there (by Stefan Geschwentner)?
• First we should identify all other eval terms which have an overlap
with new connectivity bonus (like the outpost bonus). A simple way
would be subtract the connectivity bonus from them and look if this
better, or use a SPSA session for these terms.
• Tuning Connectivity himself with SPSA seems not so promising because
of the small range which is useful. Here manual testing changes of
Connectivity like +-1 seems better.
• The eg value is more important because in endgame the position gets
more open and so attacks on pieces are easier. Another important point
is that when defending/fortress-like positions each defending piece
needs a protection, otherwise attacks on them can break defense.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1474
Bench: 5318575
Avoid duplicated code after recent commit "Use evaluation trend
to adjust futility margin". We initialize the improving variable
to true in the check case, which allows to avoid redundant code
in the general case.
Tested for speed by snicolet, patch seems about 0.4% faster.
No functional change.
Note: initializing the improving variable to false in the check
case was tested as a functional change, ending yellow in both STC
and LTC. This change is not included in the commit, but it is an
interesting result that could become part of a future patch about
improving or LMR. Reference of the LTC yellow test:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa131560ebc590297cb636e
Allow a potential slider threat from a square currently occupied
by a harmless attacker, just as the recent "knight on queen" patch.
Also from not completely safe squares, use the mobilityArea instead
of excluding all pawns for both SlidersOnQueen and KnightOnQueen
We now compute the potential sliders threat on queen only if opponent
has one queen.
Run as SPRT [0,4] since it is some kind of simplification but maybe
not clearly one.
STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa1ddf10ebc590297cb63d8
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 22997 W: 4817 L: 4570 D: 13610
LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa1fe6b0ebc590297cb63e5
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 11926 W: 1891 L: 1705 D: 8330
After this patch is committed, we may try to:
• re-introduce some "threat by queen" bonus to make Stockfish's queen
more aggressive (attacking aspect)
• introduce a concept of "queen overload" to force the opponent queen
into passivity and protecting duties (defensive aspect)
• more generally, re-tune the queen mobility array since patches in the
last three months have affected a lot the location/activity of queens.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1473
bench: 5788691
We give a S(21,11) bonus for knight threats on the next moves
against enemy queen. The threats are from squares which are
"not strongly protected" and which may be empty, contain enemy
pieces or even one of our piece at the moment (N,B,Q,R) -- hence
be two-steps threats in the later case because we will have to
move our piece and *then* attack the enemy queen with the knight.
STC: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9e442e0ebc590297cb6162
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 35129 W: 7346 L: 7052 D: 20731
LTC: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9e6e620ebc590297cb617f
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 42442 W: 6695 L: 6414 D: 29333
How to continue from there?
• Trying to refine the threat condition ("not strongly protected")
• Trying the two-steps idea for bishops or rooks threats against queen
Bench: 6051247
Similar removal of superposition code trick as in the
"Simplify tropism computation" patch. This simplification
of the space() function will allow us to specify space
masks which can reach into enemy territory.
passed STC:
LLR: 3.38 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 184630 W: 40581 L: 40758 D: 103291
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a8433360ebc590297cc80c5
passed LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 231799 W: 37647 L: 37858 D: 156294
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a96a34a0ebc590297cc8cfd
No functional change.
Add a logarithmic term in the optimism computation, increase
the maximal optimism and lower the contempt offset.
This increases the dynamics of the optimism aspects, giving
a boost for balanced positions without skewing too much on
unbalanced positions (but this version will enter panic mode
faster than previous master when behind, trying to draw faster
when slightly behind). This helps, since optimism is in general
a good thing, for instance at LTC, but too high optimism
rapidly contaminates play.
passed STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 159343 W: 34489 L: 33588 D: 91266
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a8db9340ebc590297cc85b6
passed LTC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 47491 W: 7825 L: 7517 D: 32149
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9456a80ebc590297cc8a89
It must be mentioned that a version of the PR with contempt 0
did not pass STC [0,5]. The version in the patch, which uses
default contempt 12, was found to be as strong as current master
on different matches against SF7 and SF8, both at STC and LTC.
One drawback maybe is that it raises the draw rate in self-play
from 56% to 59%, giving a little bit less sensitivity for SF
developpers to find evaluation improvements by selfplay tests
in fishtest.
Possible further work:
• tune the values accurately, while keeping in mind the drawrate issue
• check whether it is possible to remove linear and offset term
• try to simplify the S-shape curve
Bench: 5934644
Use a recursive std::array with variadic template
parameters to get rid of the last redundacy.
The first template T parameter is the base type of
the array, the W parameter is the weight applied to
the bonuses when we update values with the << operator,
the D parameter limits the range of updates (range is
[-W * D, W * D]), and the last parameters (Size and
Sizes) encode the dimensions of the array.
This allows greater flexibility because we can now tweak
the range [-W * D, W * D] for each table.
Patch removes more lines than what adds and streamlines
the Stats soup in movepick.h
Closes PR#1422 and PR#1421
No functional change.
The first depth 2 margin triggers the verification quiescence search.
This qsearch() result has to be better then the second lower margin,
so we only skip the razoring when the qsearch gives a significant
improvement.
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 32133 W: 7395 L: 7101 D: 17637
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a93198b0ebc590297cc8942
Passed LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 17382 W: 3002 L: 2809 D: 11571
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a93b18c0ebc590297cc89c2
This Elo-gaining version was further simplified following a suggestion
of Marco Costalba:
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 15553 W: 3505 L: 3371 D: 8677
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a964be90ebc590297cc8cc4
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 13253 W: 2270 L: 2137 D: 8846
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9658880ebc590297cc8cca
How to continue after this patch?
Reformating the razoring code (step 7 in search()) to unify the
depth 1 and depth 2 treatements seems quite possible, this could
possibly lead to more simplifications.
Bench: 5765806
In pawn structures like white pawns f6,h6 against black pawns f7,g6,h7
the attack on the king is blocked by the own pawns. So decrease the
penalty for king safety.
See diagram and discussion in
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1434
A sample position that this patch wants to avoid is the following
1rr2bk1/3q1p1p/2n1bPpP/pp1pP3/2pP4/P1P1B3/1PBQN1P1/1K3R1R w - - 0 1
White pawn storm on the king side was a disaster, it locked the king
side completely. Therefore, all the king tropism bonus that white have
on the king side are useless, and kingadjacent attacks too. Master
gives White a static +4.5 advantage, but White cannot win that game.
The patch is lowering this evaluation artefact.
STC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 16467 W: 3750 L: 3537 D: 9180
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a92102d0ebc590297cc87d0
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 64242 W: 11130 L: 10745 D: 42367
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a923dc80ebc590297cc8806
This version includes reformatting and speed optimization by Alain Savard.
Bench: 5643527
Using a SPSA tuning session to optimize the time management
parameters.
With SPSA tuning it is not always possible to say where improvements
came from. Maybe some variables changed randomly or because result
was not sensitive enough to them. So my explanation of changes will
not be necessarily correct, but here it is.
• When decrease of thinking time was added by Joost a few months ago
if best move has not changed for several plies, one more competing
indicator was introduced for the same purpose along with increase
in score and absence of fail low at root. It seems that tuning put
relatively more importance on that new indicator what allowed to save
time.
• Some of this saved time is distributed proportionally between all
moves and some more time were given to moves when score dropped a lot
or best move changed.
• It looks also that SPSA redistributed more time from the beginning to
later stages of game via other changes in variables - maybe because
contempt made game to last longer or for whatever reason.
All of this is just small tweaks here and there (a few percentages changes).
STC (10+0.1):
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 18970 W: 4268 L: 4029 D: 10673
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9291a40ebc590297cc8881
LTC (60+0.6):
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 72027 W: 12263 L: 11878 D: 47886
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a92d7510ebc590297cc88ef
Additional non-regression tests at other time controls
Sudden death 60s:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.00,0.00]
Total: 14444 W: 2715 L: 2608 D: 9121
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9445850ebc590297cc8a65
40 moves repeating at LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.00,0.00]
Total: 10309 W: 1880 L: 1759 D: 6670
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9566ec0ebc590297cc8be1
This is a functional patch only for time management, but the bench
does not reflect this because it uses fixed depth search, so the number
of nodes does not change during bench.
No functional change.
This is the sequel of the previous patch, we now let the parent node initialize
stat score to zero once for all grandchildren.
Initialize statScore to zero for the grandchildren of the current position.
So statScore is shared between all grandchildren and only the first grandchild
starts with statScore = 0. Later grandchildren start with the last calculated
statScore of the previous grandchild. This influences the reduction rules in
LMR which are based on the statScore of parent position.
Tests results against the previous patch:
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 23676 W: 5417 L: 5157 D: 13102
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9423a90ebc590297cc8a46
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 35485 W: 6168 L: 5898 D: 23419
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9435550ebc590297cc8a54
Bench: 5643520
Let the parent node initialize stat score to zero once for all siblings.
Initialize statScore to zero for the children of the current position.
So statScore is shared between sibling positions and only the first sibling
starts with statScore = 0. Later siblings start with the last calculated
statScore of the previous sibling. This influences the reduction rules in
in LMR which are based on the statScore of parent position.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 22683 W: 5202 L: 4946 D: 12535
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a93315f0ebc590297cc894f
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 48548 W: 8346 L: 8035 D: 32167
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a933ba90ebc590297cc8962
Bench: 5833683
The current master applies Eval::Tempo even to leaves evaluated
as draw by some of the static evaluation functions of endgame.cpp
(for instance KNN vs K or stalemates in KP vs K). This results in
some lines being reported as +0.07 or -0.07 when the terminal
position has reached such endgames (0.07 being about the value
of a tempo for Stockfish).
This patch does not apply Eval::tempo to these positions. This leads
to more nodes being evaluated as VALUE_DRAW during search, giving more
opportunities for cut-offs in alpha-beta.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 52602 W: 11776 L: 11403 D: 29423
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a8cb8f60ebc590297cc8546
LTC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 156613 W: 26820 L: 26158 D: 103635
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a8f452d0ebc590297cc865a
Bench: 4924749
To compute dicovered check or pinned pieces we use some bitwise
operators that are not really needed because already accounted for
at the caller site.
For instance in evaluation we compute:
pos.pinned_pieces(Us) & s
Where pinned_pieces() is:
st->blockersForKing[c] & pieces(c)
So in this case the & operator with pieces(c) is useless,
given the outer '& s'.
There are many places where we can use the naked blockersForKing[]
instead of the full pinned_pieces() or discovered_check_candidates().
This path is simpler than original and gives around 1% speed up for me.
Also tested for speed by mstembera and snicolet (neutral in both cases).
No functional change.
Apply -mdynamic-no-pic in a single place in the Makefile instead of 5 places.
Verified on three different Macs:
- a MacBook from 2013
- a MacBook running MacOS 10.9.5
- an iMac running MacOS 10.13.3
No functional change.
The previous asymmetry measure of the pawn structure only used to
consider the number of pawns on semi-opened files in the position.
With this patch we also increase the measure by the number of passed
pawns for both players.
Many thanks to the community for the nice feedback on the previous
version, with special mentions to Alain Savard and Marco Costalba
for clarity and speed suggestions.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 13146 W: 3038 L: 2840 D: 7268
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a91dd0c0ebc590297cc877e
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 27776 W: 4771 L: 4536 D: 18469
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a91fdd50ebc590297cc879b
How to continue after this patch?
Stockfish will now evaluate more positions with passed pawns, so
tuning the passed pawns values may bring Elo. The patch has also
consequences on the initiative term, where we might want to give
different weights to passed pawns and semi-openfiles (idea by
Stefano Cardanobile).
Bench: 5302866
Move the first killer move out of the capture stage, combining treatment
of first and second killer move.
passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 55777 W: 12367 L: 12313 D: 31097
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a88617e0ebc590297cc8351
Similar to an earlier proposition of Günther Demetz, see pull request #1075.
I think it is more robust and readable than master, why hand-unroll the loop
over the killer array, and duplicate code ?
This version includes review comments from Marco Costalba.
Bench: 5227124
The previous asymmetry measure of the pawn structure only used to
consider the number of pawns on semi-opened files in the postions.
With this patch we also increase the measure by the number of passed
pawns for both players.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 13146 W: 3038 L: 2840 D: 7268
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a91dd0c0ebc590297cc877e
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 27776 W: 4771 L: 4536 D: 18469
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a91fdd50ebc590297cc879b
How to continue from there: Stockfish will now evaluate more positions
with passed pawns, so tuning the passed pawns values may bring Elo.
The patch also has consequences on the initiative term.
Bench: 5302866
When iid (Internal iterative deepening) is invoked, the prior value of ttValue is
not guaranteed to be VALUE_NONE. As such, it is currently possible to enter a state
in which ttValue has a specific value which is inconsistent with tte->bound() and
tte->depth(). Currently, ttValue is only used within the search in a context that
prevents this situation from making a difference (and so this change is non-functional,
but this is not guaranteed to remain the case in the future.
For instance, just changing the tt depth condition in singular extension node to be
tte->depth() >= depth - 4 * ONE_PLY
instead of
tte->depth() >= depth - 3 * ONE_PLY
interacts badly with the absence of ttMove in iid. For the ttMove to become a singular
extension candidate, singularExtensionNode needs to be true. With the current master,
this requires that tte->depth() >= depth - 3 * ONE_PLY. This is not currently possible
if tte comes from IID, since the depth 'd' used for the IID search is always less than
depth - 4 * ONE_PLY for depth >= 8 * ONE_PLY (below depth 8 singularExtensionNode can
never be true anyway). However, with DU-jdto/Stockfish@251281a , this condition can be
met, and it is possible for singularExtensionNode to become true after IID. There are
then two mechanisms by which this patch can affect the search:
• If ttValue was VALUE_NONE prior to IID, the fact that this patch sets ttValue allows
the 'ttValue != VALUE_NONE' condition of singularExtensionNode to be met.
• If ttValue wasn't VALUE_NONE prior to IID, the fact that this patch modifies ttValue's
value causes a different 'rBeta' to be calculated if the singular extension search is
performed.
Tested at STC for non-regression:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 76981 W: 17060 L: 17048 D: 42873
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7738b70ebc5902971a9868
No functional change
The razoring heuristic is quite a drastic pruning technique,
using a depth 0 search at internal nodes of the search tree
to estimate the true value of depth n nodes. This patch limits
this razoring to the case of internal nodes of depth 1.
Author: Jarrod Torriero (DU-jdto)
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 8043 W: 1865 L: 1716 D: 4462
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a90a9290ebc590297cc86c1
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 32890 W: 5577 L: 5476 D: 21837
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a90c8510ebc590297cc86d5
Opportunities opened by this patch: it would be interesting to
know if it brings Elo to re-introduce razoring or soft razoring
at depth >= 2, maybe using a larger margin to compensate for the
increased pruning effect.
Bench: 5227124
This is one of the most difficult to understand but also
most important and speed critical functions of SF.
This patch rewrites some part of it to hopefully
make it clearer and drop some redundant variables
in the process.
Same speed than master (or even a bit more).
Thanks to Chris Cain for useful feedback.
No functional change.
Where variable names are explicitly incorrect, I feel morally obligated to at least
suggest an alternative. There are many, but these two are especially egregious.
No functional change.
As far as can tell, semiopenFiles are set if there is a pawn anywhere on
the file. The removed condition would be true even if the pawns were very
advanced, which doesn't make sense if we're looking for a trapped rook.
Seems the engine fairs better with this removed. My guess s that the
condition that mobility is 3 or less does this well enough.
Begs the question whether this is a mobility issue alone... not sure.
Should I do LTC test?
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 13377 W: 3009 L: 2871 D: 7497
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a855be40ebc590297cc8166
Passed LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 16288 W: 2813 L: 2685 D: 10790
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a8575a80ebc590297cc817e
Bench: 5006365
Make contempt dependent on the current score of the root position.
The idea is that we now use a linear formula like the following to decide
on the contempt to use during a search :
contempt = x + y * eval
where x is the base contempt set by the user in the "Contempt" UCI option,
and y * eval is the dynamic part which adapts itself to the estimation of
the evaluation of the root position returned by the search. In this patch,
we use x = 18 centipawns by default, and the y * eval correction can go
from -20 centipawns if the root eval is less than -2.0 pawns, up to +20
centipawns when the root eval is more than 2.0 pawns.
To summarize, the new contempt goes from -0.02 to 0.38 pawns, depending if
Stockfish is losing or winning, with an average value of 0.18 pawns by default.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 110052 W: 24614 L: 23938 D: 61500
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a72e6020ebc590f2c86ea20
LTC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 16470 W: 2896 L: 2705 D: 10869
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a76c5b90ebc5902971a9830
A second match at LTC was organised against the current master:
ELO: 1.45 +-2.9 (95%) LOS: 84.0%
Total: 19369 W: 3350 L: 3269 D: 12750
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7acf980ebc5902971a9a2e
Finally, we checked that there is no apparent problem with multithreading,
despite the fact that some threads might have a slightly different contempt
level that the main thread.
Match of this version against master, both using 5 threads, time control 30+0.3:
ELO: 2.18 +-3.2 (95%) LOS: 90.8%
Total: 14840 W: 2502 L: 2409 D: 9929
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7bf3e80ebc5902971a9aa2
Include suggestions from Marco Costalba, Aram Tumanian, Ronald de Man, etc.
Bench: 5207156
This patch simplifies the time management code, removing the extra
thinking time for moves with draw PV and increasing thinking time
for all moves proportionally by around 4%.
Last time when the time management was carefully tuned was 1.5-2 years
ago. As new patches were getting added, time management was drifting out
of optimum. This happens because when search becomes more precise pv and
score are becoming more stable, there are less fail lows, best move is
picked earlier and there are less best move changes. All this factors are
entering in time management, and average time per move is decreasing with
more and more good patches. For individual patches such effect is small
(except some) and may be up or down, but when there are many of them,
effect is more substantial. The same way benchmark with more and more
patches is slowly drifting down on average.
So my understanding that back in October adding more think time for draw
PV showed positive Elo because time management was not well tuned, there
was more time available, and think_hard patch applied this additional time
to moves with draw PV, while just retuning back to optimum would recover Elo
anyway. It is possible that absence of contempt also helped, as SF9 is showing
less 0.0 scores than the October version.
Anyway, to me it seems that proper place to deal with draw PV is search, and
contempt sounds as much better solution. In time management there is little
additional elo, and if some code is not helping like removed here, it is better
to discard it. It is simpler to find genuine improvement if code is clean.
• Passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 20487 W: 4558 L: 4434 D: 11495
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7706ec0ebc5902971a9854
• Passed LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 41960 W: 7145 L: 7058 D: 27757
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a778c830ebc5902971a9895
• Passed an additional non-regression [-5..0] test at the time control
of 60sec for the game (sudden death) with disabled draw adjudication:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-5.00,0.00]
Total: 8438 W: 1675 L: 1586 D: 5177
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7c3d8d0ebc5902971a9ac0
• Passed an additional non-regression [-5..0] test at the time control
of 1sec+1sec per move with disabled draw adjudication:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [-5.00,0.00]
Total: 27664 W: 5575 L: 5574 D: 16515
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7c3e820ebc5902971a9ac3
This is a functional change for the time management code.
Bench: 4983414
The 'eval' debugging command in Terminal did not initialize the Eval::Contempt
variable, leading to random output during debugging sessions (normal search
was unaffected by the bug).
Example of session where the two 'eval' commands should give the same output,
but did not:
./stockfish
position startpos
d
eval
go depth 20
d
eval
The bug is fixed by initializing Eval::Contempt to SCORE_ZERO in Eval::trace
No functional change.
The current logic in master is to continue return quiet moves if their
history score is above 0. It appears as though this check can be
removed, which is also more logically consistent with the “skipQuiets”
semantics used in search.cpp.
This patch may open new opportunitiesto get Elo by changing or
tuning the definition of 'moveCountPruning' in line 830 of search.cpp,
because obeying skipQuiets without checking the history scores makes
the search more sensitive to 'moveCountPruning'.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 34780 W: 7680 L: 7584 D: 19516
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a79f8d80ebc5902971a99db
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 38757 W: 6732 L: 6641 D: 25384
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7afebe0ebc5902971a9a46
Bench 4954595
Enable link-time optimization in the Makefile when compiling with clang.
Also update travis.yml to use clang++-5.0 and llvm-5.0-dev.
No functional change.
For these recaptures, we’re are only considering those captures
that recapture the recapture square (small portion of all the
captures). Therefore, scoring all of the captures and pick_besting
out of the whole group is not necessary.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 85583 W: 18978 L: 18983 D: 47622
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a717faa0ebc590f2c86e9a7
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 20231 W: 3533 L: 3411 D: 13287
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a73ad330ebc5902971a96ba
Bench: 5023593
The difference between QCAPTURES_1 and QCAPTURES_2 quiescence search stages
boils down to a simple check of depth. The way it's being done now is
unnecessarily complex.
This patch is simpler, clearer, and easier to understand.
Passed SPRT[-3..1] test at STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 99755 W: 22158 L: 22192 D: 55405
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a71f41c0ebc590f2c86e9cb
No functional change.
It seems to be a waste of time to loop through all remaining root moves
after finishing each PV line. This patch skips this until we have reached
the last PV line (this is the way it was done in Glaurung and very early
versions of Stockfish).
No functional change in Single PV mode.
MultiPV=3 STC and LTC tests
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 3113 W: 1248 L: 1064 D: 801
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 2260 W: 848 L: 679 D: 733
Bench: 5023629
It does the following:
- If a TB win or loss value allows an alpha or beta cutoff, the cutoff is taken.
- Otherwise, the search of the current subtree continues. In PV nodes, the final value returned is adjusted to reflect that the position is a TB win (or loss).
The patch also fixes a potential problem caused by root_probe() and root_probe_wdl() dirtying the root-move scores.
This patch removes the limitation of current master that a mate is never found if the root position is not yet in the TBs, but the path to mate at some point enters the TBs. The patch is intended to preserve the efficiency and effectiveness of the current TB probing approach.
No functional change (withouth TB)
Set the default contempt value of Stockfish to 20 centipawns.
The contempt feature of Stockfish tries to prevent the engine from
simplifying the position too quickly when it feels that it is very
slightly behind, instead keeping the tension a little bit longer.
Various tests in November 2017 have proved that our current imple-
mentation works well against SF7 (which is about 130 Elo weaker than
current master) and than the Elo gain is an increasing function of
contempt, going (against SF7) from +0 Elo when contempt is set at
zero centipawns, to +30 Elo when contempt is 40 centipawns.
See pull request 1325 for details:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1325
This november discussion left open the decision of which "default"
value for contempt we should use for Stockfish, taking into account
the various uses ofStockfish (opening preparation for humans, computer
online tournaments,analysis tool for web pages, human/computer play,
etc).
This pull request proposes to set the default contempt value of SF
to twenty centipawns, which turns out to be the highest value which
is not a regression against current master, as this seemed to be a
good compromise between risk and safety. A couple of SPRT[-3..1]
tests were done to bisect this value:
Contempt 10: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a5d42d20ebc5902977e2901 (PASSED)
Contempt 15: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a5d41740ebc5902977e28fa (PASSED)
Contempt 20: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a5d42060ebc5902977e28fc (PASSED)
Contempt 25: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a5d433f0ebc5902977e2904 (FAILED)
Surprisingly, a test at "very long time control" hinted that using
contempt 20 is not only be non-regressive against contempt 0, but
may actually exhibit some small Elo gain, giving a likehood of superio-
rity of 88.7% after 8500 games:
VLTC:
ELO: 2.28 +-3.7 (95%) LOS: 88.7%
Total: 8521 W: 1096 L: 1040 D: 6385
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a60b2820ebc590297b9b7e0
Finally, there was some concerns that a contempt value of 20 would
be worse than a value of 7, but a test with 20000 games at STC was
neutral:
STC:
ELO: 0.45 +-3.1 (95%) LOS: 61.2%
Total: 20000 W: 4222 L: 4196 D: 11582
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a64d2fd0ebc590297903868
See the comments in pull request 1361 for the long, nice discussion
(180 entries :-)) leading to the decision to propose contempt 20 as
the default value:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1361
Whether Stockfish should strictly adhere to the Komodo and Houdini
semantics and add the UCI commands to force the contempt to be White
in the so-called "analysis mode" is still under discussion, and may
be or may not be the object of a future commit.
Bench: 5783344
1. avoid recursive call of verification.
For the interested side to move recursion makes no sense.
For the other side it could make sense in case of mutual zugzwang,
but I was not able to figure out any concrete problematic position.
Allows the removal of 2 local variables.
2. avoid further reduction by removing R += ONE_PLY;
Benchmark with zugzwang-suite (see #1338), max 45 secs per position:
Patch solves 33 out of 37
Master solves 31 out of 37
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 76188 W: 13866 L: 13840 D: 48482
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a5612ed0ebc590297da516c
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40479 W: 5247 L: 5152 D: 30080
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a56f7d30ebc590299e4550e
bench: 5340015
as discussed in issue #1349, the way pages are allocated with calloc might imply some overhead on first write.
This overhead can be large and slow down the first search after a TT resize significantly, especially for large TT.
Using an explicit clear of the TT on resize fixes this problem.
Not implemented, but possibly useful for large TT, is to do this zero-ing using all search threads. Not only would this be faster, it could also lead to a more favorable memory allocation on numa systems with a first touch policy.
No functional change.
The heuristic to avoid thread binding if less than 8 threads are requested resulted in the first 7 threads not being bound.
The branch was verified to yield a roughly 13% speedup by @CoffeeOne on the appropriate hardware and OS, and an earlier version of this patch tested well on his machine:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a3693480ebc590ccbb8be5a
ELO: 9.24 +-4.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 5000 W: 634 L: 501 D: 3865
To make sure all threads (including mainThread) are bound as soon as the total number exceeds 7, recreate all threads on a change of thread number.
To do this, unify Threads::init, Threads::exit and Threads::set are unified in a single Threads::set function that goes through the needed steps.
The code includes several suggestions from @joergoster.
Fixes issue #1312
No functional change
For efficiency reasons current master only allows for transposition table sizes that are N = 2^k in size, the index computation can be done efficiently as (hash % N) can be written instead as (hash & 2^k - 1). On a typical computer (with 4, 8... etc Gb of RAM), this implies roughly half the RAM is left unused in analysis.
This issue was mentioned on fishcooking by Mindbreaker:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a3587de0ebc590ccbb8be04
Recently a neat trick was proposed to map a hash into the range [0,N[ more efficiently than (hash % N) for general N, nearly as efficiently as (hash % 2^k):
https://lemire.me/blog/2016/06/27/a-fast-alternative-to-the-modulo-reduction/
namely computing (hash * N / 2^32) for 32 bit hashes. This patch implements this trick and now allows for general hash sizes. Note that for N = 2^k this just amounts to using a different subset of bits from the hash. Master will use the lower k bits, this trick will use the upper k bits (of the 32 bit hash).
There is no slowdown as measured with [-3, 1] test:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a3587de0ebc590ccbb8be04
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 128498 W: 23332 L: 23395 D: 81771
There are two (smaller) caveats:
1) the patch is implemented for a 32 bit hash (so that a 64 bit multiply can be used), this effectively limits the number of clusters that can be used to 2^32 or to 128Gb of transpostion table. That's a change in the maximum allowed TT size, which could bother those using 256Gb or more regularly.
2) Already in master, an excluded move is hashed into the position key in rather simple way, essentially only affecting the lower 16 bits of the key. This is OK in master, since bits 0-15 end up in the index, but not in the new scheme, which picks the higher bits. This is 'fixed' by shifting the excluded move a few bits up. Eventually a better hashing scheme seems wise.
Despite these two caveats, I think this is a nice improvement in usability.
Bench: 5346341
Current master can yield different staticEvals depending on the path
used to reach the position. The reason for this is that the evaluation after a
null move is always computed subtracting 2 * Eval::Tempo, while this is not
the case for lazy or specialized evals. This patch always adds tempo to evals,
which doesn't affect playing strength:
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 59911 W: 7616 L: 7545 D: 44750
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 104947 W: 18897 L: 18919 D: 67131
Fixes issue #1335
Bench: 5208264
Simplify the other check penalty computation. Compared to current master,
a) it uses a 143 kingDanger penalty instead of S(10, 10) for the "otherCheck"
(credits to ElbertoOne for finding a suitable kingDanger range to replace the score
and to Guardian for showing this could also be a neutral change at LTC).
This makes our king safety model more consistent and simpler.
b) it might also score more than one "otherCheck" penalty for a given piece type instead of just one
c) it might score many pinned penalties instead of just one.
d) It also remove 3 conditionals and uses simpler expressions.
So it was tested as a SPRT[-3, 1]
Passed STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a2b560b0ebc590ccbb8ba6b
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 11705 W: 2217 L: 2080 D: 7408
And LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a2bfd0d0ebc590ccbb8bab0
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 26812 W: 3575 L: 3463 D: 19774
Trying to improve on b) another attempt was made to score also the
"otherchecks" for piece types which had some safe checks, but this
failed STC http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a2c79e60ebc590ccbb8badd
bench: 5149133
* A better contempt implementation for Stockfish
The round 2 of TCEC season 10 demonstrated the benefit of having a nice contempt implementation: it gives the strongest programs in the tournament the ability to slow down the game when they feel the position is slightly worse, prefering to stay in a complicated (even if slightly risky) middle game rather than simplifying by force into a drawn endgame.
The current contempt implementation of Stockfish is inadequate, and this patch is an attempt to provide a better one.
Passed STC non-regression test against master:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 83360 W: 15089 L: 15075 D: 53196
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a1bf2de0ebc590ccbb8b370
This contempt implementation is showing promising results in certains situations. For instance, it obtained a nice +30 Elo gain when playing with contempt=40 against Stockfish 7, compared to current master:
• master against SF 7 (20000 games at LTC): +121.2 Elo
• this patch with contempt=40 (20000 games at LTC): +154.11 Elo
This was the result of real cooperative work from the Stockfish team, with key ideas coming from Stefan Geschwentner (locutus2) and Chris Cain (ceebo) while most of the community helped with feedback and computer time.
In this commit the bench is unchanged by default, but you can test at home with the new contempt in the UCI options. The style of play will change a lot when using contempt different of zero (I repeat: not done in this version by default, however)!
The Stockfish team is still deliberating over the best default contempt value in self-play and the best contempt modeling strategy, to help users choosing a contempt value when playing against much weaker programs. These informations will be given in future commits when available :-)
Bench: 5051254
* Remove the prefetch
No functional change.
Currently the NORTH/WEST/SOUTH/EAST values are of type Square, but conceptually they are not squares but directions. This patch separates these values into a Direction enum and overloads addition and subtraction to allow adding a Square to a Direction (to get a new Square).
I have also slightly trimmed the possible overloadings to improve type safety. For example, it would normally not make sense to add a Color to a Color or a Piece to a Piece, or to multiply or divide them by an integer. It would also normally not make sense to add a Square to a Square.
This is a non-functional change.
Add the -fno-exceptions flag to the Makefile to avoid the unecessary exceptions support in the executable (we do not use any exception in Stockfish at the moment).
This change gives a 9.2% reduction in size for the executable binary.
Before : executable size = 376956 bytes
After: executable size = 347652 bytes
No functional change.
Four very minor edits. Note that tte->save() uses posKey and
not pos.key() in other places.
Originally I also added a futility_move_counts() function to
make things more consistent with the futility_margin() and
reduction() functions. But then razor_margin[] should probably
also be turned into a function, etc. Maybe a good idea, maybe not.
So I did not include it.
Non functional change.
The new "weak" expression helps simplify the safe check calculations for rooks or minors, (but the end result for all the safe checks is the exactly the same as in current master)
The only functional change is for the "outer king ring" (for example, squares f3 g3 h3 when white king is on g1). In current master, there was a 191 penalty if any of these was not defended at all.
With this pr, there is this 191 penalty if any of these is not defended at all or is only defended by a white queen.
Tested as a simplification
STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59fb03d80ebc590ccbb89fee
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 66167 W: 12015 L: 11971 D: 42181
(against master (Update Copyright year inMakefile))
LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a0106ae0ebc590ccbb8a55f
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 15790 W: 2095 L: 1968 D: 11727
(against master (Handle BxN trade as good capture when history scor))
same as #1296 but rebased on latest master
bench: 5109559
In terms of technical changes this patch eliminates the return
statements from the main loop of pos.see_ge() and replaces two conditional
computations with a single bitwise negation.
No functional change
Stockfish currently relies on the "filter_root_moves" function also
having the side effect of clamping Cardinality against MaxCardinality
(the actual piece count in the tablebases). So if we skip this function,
we will end up probing in the search even without tablebases installed.
We cannot bail out of this function before this check is done, so move
the MultiPV hack a few lines below.
If the PV leads to a draw (3-fold / 50-moves) position
and we're ahead of time, think a little longer, possibly
finding a better way.
As this is most likely effective at higher draw rates,
tried speculative LTC after a yellow STC:
STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59eb173a0ebc590ccbb8975d
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 56095 W: 10013 L: 9902 D: 36180
elo = 0.688 +- 1.711 LOS: 78.425%
LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59eba1670ebc590ccbb897b4
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 59579 W: 7577 L: 7273 D: 44729
elo = 1.773 +- 1.391 LOS: 99.381%
bench: 5234652
In x/y time controls there was a theoretical possibility
to use all available time few moves before the clock will
be updated with new time. This patch fixes that issue.
Tested at 60/15 time control:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 113963 W: 20008 L: 20042 D: 73913
The test was done without adjudication rules!
Bench 5234652
A band-aid patch to workaround current TB code
limitations with multi PV.
Hopefully this will be removed after committing the
big update of TB impementation, now under discussion.
No functional change.
If the search is quit before skill.pick_best is called,
skill.best_move might be MOVE_NONE.
Ensure skill.best is always assigned anyhow.
Also retire the tricky best_move() and let the underlying
semantic to be clear and explicit.
No functional change.
The first change (ss->statScore >= 0) does nothing.
The second change ((ss-1)->statScore >= 0 ) has a massive change.
(ss-1)->statScore is not set until (ss-1) begins to apply LMR to moves.
So we now increase the reduction for bad quiets when our opponent is
running through the first captures and the hash move.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 57762 W: 10533 L: 10181 D: 37048
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 19973 W: 2662 L: 2480 D: 14831
Bench: 5037819
This patch lets ss->ply be equal to 0 at the root of the search.
Currently, the root has ss->ply == 1, which is less intuitive:
- Setting the rootNode bool has to check (ss-1)->ply == 0.
- All mate values are off by one: the code seems to assume that mated-in-0
is -VALUE_MATE, mate-1-in-ply is VALUE_MATE-1, mated-in-2-ply is VALUE_MATE+2, etc.
But the mate_in() and mated_in() functions are called with ss->ply, which is 1 in
at the root.
- The is_draw() function currently needs to explain why it has "ply - 1 > i" instead
of simply "ply > i".
- The ss->ply >= MAX_PLY tests in search() and qsearch() already assume that
ss->ply == 0 at the root. If we start at ss->ply == 1, it would make more sense to
go up to and including ss->ply == MAX_PLY, so stop at ss->ply > MAX_PLY. See also
the asserts testing for 0 <= ss->ply && ss->ply < MAX_PLY.
The reason for ss->ply == 1 at the root is the line "ss->ply = (ss-1)->ply + 1" at
the start for search() and qsearch(). By replacing this with "(ss+1)->ply = ss->ply + 1"
we keep ss->ply == 0 at the root. Note that search() already clears killers in (ss+2),
so there is no danger in accessing ss+1.
I have NOT changed pv[MAX_PLY + 1] to pv[MAX_PLY + 2] in search() and qsearch().
It seems to me that MAX_PLY + 1 is exactly right:
- MAX_PLY entries for ss->ply running from 0 to MAX_PLY-1, and 1 entry for the
final MOVE_NONE.
I have verified that mate scores are reported correctly. (They were already reported
correctly due to the extra ply being rounded down when converting to moves.)
The value of seldepth output to the user should probably not change, so I add 1 to it.
(Humans count from 1, computers from 0.)
A small optimisation I did not include: instead of setting ss->ply in every invocation
of search() and qsearch(), it could be set once for all plies at the start of
Thread::search(). This saves a couple of instructions per node.
No functional change (unless the search searches a branch MAX_PLY deep), so bench
does not change.
This shoudl reduce time losses experienced by
users after new time management code.
Verified for no regression in very short TC (4sec + 0.1)
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 35262 W: 7426 L: 7331 D: 20505
Bench 5322108
Use different penalties for weaknesses in the pawn shelter
depending on whether it is on the king's file or not.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 71617 W: 13471 L: 13034 D: 45112
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 48708 W: 6463 L: 6187 D: 36058
Bench: 5322108
Two simplifications:
- Remove the initialisation to 0 of occupied, which is now unnecessary.
- Remove the initial check for nextVictim == KING
If nextVictim == KING, then PieceValue[MG][nextVictim] will be 0, so that
balance >= threshold is true. So see_ge() returns true anyway.
No functional change.
Compile with -Werror flag. To make debugging easier
also show compile ourput.
This flag is enabled only in Travis CI, not in the shipped
Makefile becuase we can't test on every possible platform.
In light of issue #1232, a test was performed about the value of '-fno-exceptions' and a second one of the combination '-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti'. It turns out these options are can be removed without introducing slowdown.
STC for removing '-fno-exceptions'
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 13678 W: 2572 L: 2439 D: 8667
STC for removing '-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti' (current patch)
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 32557 W: 6074 L: 5973 D: 20510
No functional change.
During TB initialisation, Stockfish checks for the presence of WDL
tables but not for the presence of DTZ tables. When attempting to probe
a DTZ table, it is therefore possible that the table is not present.
In that case, Stockfish should neither exit nor report an error.
To verify the bug:
$ ./stockfish
setoption name SyzygyTable value <path_to_WDL_dir>
position fen 8/8/4r3/4k3/8/1K2P3/3P4/6R1 w - -
go infinite
Could not mmap() /opt/tb/regular/KRPPvKR.rtbz
$
(On my system, the WDL tables are in one directory and the DTZ tables
in another. If they are in the same directory, it will be difficult
to trigger the bug.)
The fix is trivial: check the file descriptor/handle after opening
the file.
No functional change.
After increasing the number of threads, the histories were not cleared,
resulting in uninitialized memory usage.
This patch fixes this by clearing threads histories in Thread c'tor as
is the idomatic way.
This fixes issue 1227
No functional change.
credit goes to @mstembera for suggesting this approach.
SEE now deals with castling, promotion and en passant in a similar way.
passed STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 32902 W: 6079 L: 5979 D: 20844
passed LTC
LLR: 3.92 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 110698 W: 14198 L: 14145 D: 82355
Bench: 5713905
And set x86 and x64 platforms for real.
Currently this is broken and the same binary is compiled for all platforms.
This is becuase we use a custom build step. OTH the default
build step seems not compatible with cmake generated *sln file.
No functional change.
If any thread found a 'mate in x' stop the search. Previously only
mainThread would do so. Requires the bestThread selection to be
adjusted to always prefer mate scores, even if the search depth is less.
I've tried to collect some data for this patch. On 30 cores, mate finding
seems 5-30% faster on average. It is not so easy to get numbers for this,
as the time to find a mate fluctuates significantly with multi-threaded runs,
so it is an average over 100 searches for the same position. Furthermore,
hash size and position make a difference as well.
Bench: 5965302
Avoid constructing, passing as a parameter and binding a useless empty tuple of pointers in the qsearch move picker constructor.
Also reformat the scoring function in movepicker.cpp and do some cleaning in evaluate.cpp while there.
No functional change.
What this patch does is:
* increase safety margin from 40ms to 60ms. It's worth noting that the previous
code not only used 60ms incompressible safety margin, but also an additional
buffer of 30ms for each "move to go".
* remove a whart, integrating the extra 10ms in Move Overhead value instead.
Additionally, this ensures that optimumtime doesn't become bigger than maximum
time after maximum time has been artificially discounted by 10ms. So it keeps
the code more logical.
Tested at 3 different time controls:
Standard 10+0.1
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 58008 W: 10674 L: 10617 D: 36717
Sudden death 16+0
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 59664 W: 10945 L: 10891 D: 37828
Tournament 40/10
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 16371 W: 3092 L: 2963 D: 10316
bench: 5479946
Add tests for:
- Positions with move list
- Chess960 positions
Now bench covers almost all cases, only few endgames
are still out of reach (verified with lcov)
It is a non functionality patch, but bench
changed because we added new test positions.
bench: 5479946
Rewrite perft to be placed naturally inside new
bench code. In particular we don't have special
custom code to run perft anymore but perft is
just a new parameter of 'go' command.
So user API is now changed, old style command:
$perft 5
becomes
$go perft 4
No functional change.
First step in improving bench to handle
arbitrary UCI commands so to test many
more code paths.
This first patch just set the new code
structure.
No functional change.
In particular clarify that 'sd'
parameter is used only in !movesToGo
case.
Verified with Ivan's check tool it is
equivalent to original code.
No functional change.
The only call site of Time.maximum() corrected by 10.
Do this directly in remaining().
Ponder increased Time.optimum by 25% in init(). Idem.
Delete unused includes.
No functional change.
Avoid a couple of redundant rebuilds and compile
with 2 threads since travis gives 2vCPUs.
Also enable -O1 optimization for valgrind and
sanitizers, it should be safe withouth false
positives and it gives a very sensible speed
up, especially with valgrind.
The spee dup allow us to increase testing to
depth 10, useful for thread sanitizer.
No functional change.
Current update formula ensures that the
possible value range is [-32 * D, 32 * D].
So we never overflow if abs(32 * D) < INT16_MAX
Thanks to Joost and mstembera to clarify this.
No functional change.
The trick is to create an ambiguity for the
compiler in case an unwanted conversion to
Move is attempted like in:
ExtMove m1{Move(17),4}, m2{Move(4),17};
std::cout << (m1 < m2) << std::endl; // 1
std::cout << (m1 > m2) << std::endl; // 1(!)
This fixes issue #1204
No functional change.
Reduces memory footprint by ~1.2MB (per thread).
Strong pressure: small but mesurable gain
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 258430 W: 46977 L: 45943 D: 165510
Low pressure: no regression
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 73542 W: 13058 L: 13026 D: 47458
Strong pressure + LTC: elo gain confirmed
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 31489 W: 4532 L: 4295 D: 22662
Tested for crashing on overflow and after 70K
games at STC we have only 4 time losses,
possible candidate for an overflow.
No functional change.
We use Position::set() to set root position across
threads. But there are some StateInfo fields (previous,
pliesFromNull, capturedPiece) that cannot be deduced
from a fen string, so set() clears them and to not lose
the info we need to backup and later restore setupStates->back().
Note that setupStates is shared by threads but is accessed
in read-only mode.
This fixes regression introduced by df6cb446ea
Tested with 3 threads at STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.00,0.00]
Total: 14436 W: 2304 L: 2196 D: 9936
Bench: 5608839
Some warnings after a run of:
$ clang-tidy-3.8 -checks='modernize-*' *.cpp syzygy/*.cpp -header-filter=.* -- -std=c++11
I have not fixed all suggestions, for instance I still prefer
to declare the type instead of a spread use of 'auto'. I also
perfer good old 'typedef' to the new 'using' form.
I have not fixed some warnings in the last functions of
syzygy code because those are still the original functions
and need to be completely rewritten anyhow.
Thanks to erbsenzaehler for the original idea.
No functional change.
Simplify out low level sync stuff (mutex
and friends) and avoid to use them directly
in many functions.
Also some renaming and better comment while
there.
No functional change.
The case of three or more bishops against a long king must look at all of the
bishops and not just the first two in the piece lists. This patch makes sure
that the position is treated as a win when there are bishops on opposite
colors. This functional change is very small because bench remains the same.
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.00,0.00]
Total: 24249 W: 4349 L: 4275 D: 15625
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/598186530ebc5916ff64a218
Bench: 5608839
In this rare case (e.g. go infinite on a stalemate),
just spin till ponderhit/stop comes.
The Thread::wait() is a renmant of the old YBWC
code, today with lazy SMP, threads don't need to
wait when outside of their idle loop.
No functional change.
But this time correctly set Threads.ponder
We avoid using 'limits' for passing pondering
flag because we don't want to have 2 ponder
variables in search scope: Search::Limits.ponder
and Threads.ponder. This would be confusing also
because limits.ponder is set at the beginning of
the search and never changes, instead Threads.ponder
can change value asynchronously during search.
No functional change.
This reverts commit 5410424e3d.
After the commit pondering is broken, so revert for now. I will
resubmit with a proper fix.
The issue is mine, Joost original code is correct.
No functional change.
Limits::ponder was used as a signal between uci and search threads,
but is not an atomic variable, leading to the following race as
flagged by a sanitized binary.
Expect input:
```
spawn ./stockfish
send "uci\n"
expect "uciok"
send "setoption name Ponder value true\n"
send "go wtime 4000 btime 4000\n"
expect "bestmove"
send "position startpos e2e4 d7d5\n"
send "go wtime 4000 btime 4000 ponder\n"
sleep 0.01
send "ponderhit\n"
expect "bestmove"
send "quit\n"
expect eof
```
Race:
```
WARNING: ThreadSanitizer: data race (pid=7191)
Read of size 4 at 0x0000005c2260 by thread T1:
Previous write of size 4 at 0x0000005c2260 by main thread:
Location is global 'Search::Limits' of size 88 at 0x0000005c2220 (stockfish+0x0000005c2260)
```
The reason of teh race is that ponder is not just set in UCI go()
assignment but also is signaled by an async ponderhit in uci.cpp:
else if (token == "ponderhit")
Search::Limits.ponder = 0; // Switch to normal search
The fix is to add an atomic bool to the threads structure to
signal the ponder status, letting Search::Limits to reflect just
what was passed to 'go'.
No functional change.
Better split code that should be run at
startup from code run at ucinewgame. Also
fix several races when 'bench', 'perft' and
'ucinewgame' are sent just after 'bestomve'
from the engine threads are still running.
Also use a specific UI thread instead of
main thread when setting up the Position
object used by UI uci loop. This fixes a
race when sending 'eval' command while searching.
We accept a race on 'setoption' to allow the
GUI to change an option while engine is searching
withouth stalling the pipe. Note that changing an
option while searchingg is anyhow not mandated by
UCI protocol.
No functional change.
as a lower level routine, movepicker should not depend on the
search stack or the thread class, removing a circular dependency.
Instead of copying the search stack into the movepicker object,
as well as accessing the thread class for one of the histories,
pass the required fields explicitly to the constructor (removing
the need for thread.h and implicitly search.h in movepick.cpp).
The signature is thus longer, but more explicit:
Also some renaming of histories structures while there.
passed STC [-3,1], suggesting a small elo impact:
LLR: 3.13 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 381053 W: 68071 L: 68551 D: 244431
elo = -0.438 +- 0.660 LOS: 9.7%
No functional change.
A pawn (according to all the searched positions of a bench run) is not supported 85% of the time,
(in current master it is either isolated, backward or "unsupported").
So it made sense to try moving the S(17, 8) "unsupported" penalty value into the base pawn value hoping for a more representative pawn value, and accordingly
a) adjust backward and isolated so that they stay more or less the same as master
b) increase the mg connected bonus in the supported case by S(17, 0) and let the Connected formula find a suitable eg value according to rank.
Tested as a simplification SPRT(-3, 1)
Passed STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5970dbd30ebc5916ff649dd6
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 19613 W: 3663 L: 3540 D: 12410
Passed LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/597137780ebc5916ff649de3
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 24721 W: 3306 L: 3191 D: 18224
Bench: 5581946
Closes#1179
in the last month a couple of timeouts have been seen in travis valgrind testing, leading to undesired false positives. The precise cause of this is unclear: a normal valgrind instrumented run is about 6min, the timeout is 10min. Either there are rare hangs (not reproduced locally), or maybe the actual runtime fluctuates on the travis infrastructure (which uses VMs on AWS as far as I know). This patch leads to roughly a 2x speedup of the instrumented testing by reducing the depth from 10 to 9. If timeouts persist, it needs further analysis.
No functional change.
Closes#1171
For some reason, although game phase is used
only in material, it is computed in Position.
Move computation to material, where it belongs,
and remove the useless call chain.
No functional change.
Instead of having Signals in the search namespace,
make the stop variables part of the Threads structure.
This moves more of the shared (atomic) variables towards
the thread-related structures, making their role more clear.
No functional change
Closes#1149
Optimization options for official stockfish should be
consistent, easy, future proof and simple.
We don't want to optimize for any specific version of gcc
No functional change
Closes#1165
Addition of correction values in case of Imbalance of queens,
depending on the number of light pieces on the side without a queen.
Passed patch:
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 29036 W: 5379 L: 5130 D: 18527
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 13680 W: 1836 L: 1674 D: 10170
Bench: 6258930
Closes#1155
It is not needed becuase the only case is a real special
one (bench on depth with many threads) and can be easily
rewritten to avoid sharing rootDepth.
Verified with ThreadSanitizer.
No functional change.
Closes#1159
Only one remains (also in tbprobe.cpp), but is bougus.
As a side note, tbprobe.cpp is almost clean, only the last 3
functions probe_wdl(), root_probe() and root_probe_wdl()
are still the original ones and are quite hacky.
Somewhere in the future we will reformat also the last 3
ones. The reason why has not been done before it is because
these functions are really wrong by design and should be
rewritten entirely, not only reformatted.
No functional change.
Closes#1160
Make magic_index() a member of Magic since it uses all it's members
and keep us from having to pass the function pointer around to
init_magics().
No functional change
Closes#1146
The main change of the patch is that now time check
is done only by main thread. In the past, before lazy
SMP, we needed all the threds to check for available
time because main thread could have been blocked on
a split point, now this is no more the case and main
thread can do the job alone, greatly simplifying the logic.
Verified for regression testing on STC with 7 threads:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 11895 W: 1741 L: 1608 D: 8546
No functional change.
Closes#1152
Now we don't need anymore the tricky pointer to
show the failed test. Added some few tests too.
Also small rename in see_ge() while there.
No functional change
Closes#1151
The idea is that chances are the tt-move is best and will be difficult to raise alpha when playing a quiet move.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 7582 W: 1415 L: 1259 D: 4908
LTC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 59553 W: 7885 L: 7573 D: 44095
Bench: 5725676
Closes#1147
This patch puts the evaluation helper functions inside EvalInfo struct, which simplifies a bit their signature and (most importantly, IMHO) makes their C++ code much cleaner and simpler to read (by removing the "ei." qualifiers all around in evaluate.cpp).
Also rename the EvalInfo struct into Evaluation class to get a natural invocation v = Evaluation(p).value() to evaluation position p.
The downside is an increase of 20 lines in evaluate.cpp (for the prototypes of the helper functions). The upsides are better readability and a speed-up of 0.6% (by generating all the helpers for the NO_TRACE case together, which helps the instruction cache).
No functional change
Closes#1135
the nodes, tbHits, rootDepth and lastInfoTime variables are read by multiple threads, but not declared atomic, leading to data races as found by -fsanitize=thread. This patch fixes this issue. It is based on top of the CI-threading branch (PR #1129), and should fix the corresponding CI error messages.
The patch passed an STC check for no regression:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5925d5590ebc59035df34b9f
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 169597 W: 29938 L: 30066 D: 109593
Whereas rootDepth and lastInfoTime are not performance critical, nodes and tbHits are. Indeed, an earlier version using relaxed atomic updates on the latter two variables failed STC testing (http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/592001700ebc59035df34924), which can be shown to be due to x86-32 (http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/592330ac0ebc59035df34a89). Indeed, the latter have no instruction to atomically update a 64bit variable. The proposed solution thus uses a variable in Position that is accessed only by one thread, which is copied every few thousand nodes to the shared variable in Thread.
No functional change.
Closes#1130Closes#1129
The change passed an STC regression:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 59350 W: 10793 L: 10738 D: 37819
I verified that there was no change in performance on my machine, but of course YMMV:
Results for 40 tests for each version:
Base Test Diff
Mean 2014338 2016121 -1783
StDev 62655 63441 3860
p-value: 0.678
speedup: 0.001
No functional change.
Closes#1137
TT.new_search() was being called by mainThread in Thread::search(). However, mainThread is the last to start searching, and helper threads could reach a measured rootDepth 10 (on 64 cores) before mainThread increments the TT generation. Fixed by moving the call to MaintThread::search() before helper threads start searching.
No functional change.
Closes#1134
Gather all magic relevant data into a struct.
This changes memory layout putting everything necessary for processing a single square
in the same memory location thus speeding up access.
Original patch by @snicolet
No functional change.
Closes#1127Closes#1128
In the current version a search stops when the current position is the same as
any position earlier in the search stack,
including the root position but excluding positions before the root.
The new version makes an exception for repeating the root position.
This gives correct scores for moves in the MultiPV > 1 mode.
Fixes#948 (see it for the detailed description of the bug).
LTC: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/587910bc0ebc5915193f754b
ELO: 0.38 +-1.7 (95%) LOS: 66.8%
Total: 40000 W: 5166 L: 5122 D: 29712
STC: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5922e6230ebc59035df34a50
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 94622 W: 17059 L: 17064 D: 60499
LTC: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59273a000ebc59035df34c03
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 61259 W: 7965 L: 7897 D: 45397
Bench: 6599721
Closes#1126
Rearrange and rename all history heuristic code. Naming
is now based on chessprogramming.wikispaces.com conventions
and the relations among the various heuristics are now more
clear and consistent.
No functional change.
The previous patch has added a fraction of the king danger score to the
endgame score of the tapered eval, so it seems natural to perform the
king danger computation later in the endgame.
With this patch we extend the limit of such check analysis down to the
material of Rook+Knight, when we have at least two pieces attacking the
opponent king zone.
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 7446 W: 1409 L: 1253 D: 4784
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/591c097c0ebc59035df3477c
and LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 14234 W: 1946 L: 1781 D: 10507
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/591c24f10ebc59035df3478c
Bench: 5975183
Closes#1121
Fixes a bug in Search::clear, where the filling of CounterMoveStats&, overwrote (currently presumably unused) memory because sizeof(cm) returns the size in bytes, whereas elements was needed.
No functional change
Closes#1119
In current master the size of the king ring varies abruptly from eight
squares when the king is in g8, to 12 squares when it is in g7. Because
the king ring is used for estimating attack strength, this may lead to
an overestimation of king danger in some positions. This patch limits
the king ring to eight squares in all cases.
Inspired by the following forum thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/fishcooking/xrUCQ7b0ObE
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 9244 W: 1777 L: 1611 D: 5856
and LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 87121 W: 11765 L: 11358 D: 63998
Bench: 6121121
Closes#1115
execute an implied ucinewgame upon entering the UCI::loop,
to make sure that searches starting with and without an (optional) ucinewgame
command yield the same search.
This is needed now that seach::clear() initializes tables to non-zero default values.
No functional change
Closes#1101Closes#1104
Replacing the old Protector table with a simple linear formula which takes into account a different slope for each different piece type.
The idea of this simplification of Protector is originated by Alain (Rocky)
STC: LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 70382 W: 12859 L: 12823 D: 44700
LTC: LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 61554 W: 8098 L: 8031 D: 45425
Bench: 6107863
Closes#1099
In general, this patch handles the cases where we don't have a valid score for each PV line in a multiPV search. This can happen if the search has been stopped in an unfortunate moment while still in the aspiration loop. The patch consists of two parts.
Part 1: The new PVIdx was already part of the k-best pv's in the last iteration, and we therefore have a valid pv and score to output from the last iteration. This is taken care of with:
bool updated = (i <= PVIdx && rootMoves[i].score != -VALUE_INFINITE);
Case 2: The new PVIdx was NOT part of the k-best pv's in the last iteration, and we have no valid pv and score to output. Not from the current nor from the previous iteration. To avoid this, we are now also considering the previous score when sorting, so that the PV lines with no actual but with a valid previous score are pushed up again, and the previous score can be displayed.
bool operator<(const RootMove& m) const {
return m.score != score ? m.score < score : m.previousScore < previousScore; } // Descending sort
I also added an assertion in UCI::value() to possibly catch similar issues earlier.
No functional change.
Closes#502Closes#1074
Testing the release candidate revealed only one minor issue, namely a new warning -Wimplicit-fallthrough (part of -Wextra) triggers in the movepicker. This can be silenced by adding a comment, and once we move to c++17 by adding a standard annotation [[fallthrough]];.
No functional change.
Closes#1090
StepAttacks[] is misdesigned, the color dependance is specific
to pawns, and trying to generalise to king and knights, proves
neither useful nor convinient in practice.
So this patch reformats the code with the following changes:
- Use PieceType instead of Piece in attacks_() functions
- Use PseudoAttacks for KING and KNIGHT
- Rename StepAttacks[] into PawnAttacks[]
Original patch and idea from Alain Savard.
No functional change.
Closes#1086
ss->killers can change while the movepicker is active.
The reason ss->killers changes is related to the singular
extension search in the moves loop that calls search<>
recursively with ss instead of ss+1,
effectively using the same stack entry for caller and callee.
By making a copy of the killers,
the movepicker does the right thing nevertheless.
Tested as a bug fix
STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/58ff130f0ebc59035df33f37
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 70845 W: 12752 L: 12716 D: 45377
LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/58ff48000ebc59035df33f3d
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28368 W: 3730 L: 3619 D: 21019
Bench: 6465887
Closes#1085
history related scores are not related to evaluation based scores.
For example, can easily exceed the range -VALUE_INFINITE,VALUE_INFINITE.
As such the current type is confusing, and a plain int is a better match.
tested for no regression:
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 43693 W: 7909 L: 7827 D: 27957
No functional change.
Closes#1070
the order of elements returned by std::partition is implementation defined (since not stable) and could depend on the version of libstdc++ linked.
As std::stable_partition was tested to be too slow (http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/585cdfd00ebc5903140c6082).
Instead combine partition with our custom implementation of insert_sort, which fixes this issue.
Implementation based on a patch by mstembera (http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/58d4d3460ebc59035df3315c), which suggests some benefit by itself.
Higher depth moves are all sorted (INT_MIN version), as in current master.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 33116 W: 6161 L: 6061 D: 20894
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 88703 W: 11572 L: 11540 D: 65591
Bench: 6256522
Closes#1058Closes#1065
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 58462 W: 10615 L: 10558 D: 37289
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 65061 W: 8539 L: 8477 D: 48045
It is worth noting that an attempt to only increase the bonus passed STC but failed LTC, and
an attempt to remove the cap without increasing the bonus is still running at STC, but will probably fail after more than 100k.
Bench: 6188591
Closes#1063
By adding pos.non_pawn_material(pos.side_to_move()) as a precondition in step 13,
which is already in use in Futility Pruning (child node) and Null Move Pruning for similar reasons.
Pawn endgames, especially those with only 1 or 2 pawns, are simply heavily influenced by zugzwang situations.
Since we are using a bitbase for KPK endgames, I see no reason to accept buggy evals as shown in #760
Patch looks neutral at STC
LLR: 2.32 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 79580 W: 10789 L: 10780 D: 58011
and LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 27071 W: 3502 L: 3390 D: 20179
Bench: 6259071
Closes#1051Closes#760
a single Xeon Phi can present itself as a single numa node with up to 288 threads (4 threads per hardware core).
Tested to work as expected with a Xeon Phi CPU 7230 up to 256 threads.
No functional change
Closes#1045
If we can moveCountPrune and next quiet move has negative stats,
then go directly to the next move stage (Bad_Captures).
Reduction formula is tweaked to compensate for the decrease in move count that is used in LMR.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 6847 W: 1276 L: 1123 D: 4448
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 48687 W: 6503 L: 6226 D: 35958
Bench: 5919519
Closes#1036
Instead of having a continuous increasing bonus for our number of pawns when calculating imbalance, use a separate lookup array with tuned values.
Idea by GuardianRM.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 16155 W: 2980 L: 2787 D: 10388
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 100478 W: 13055 L: 12615 D: 74808
Bench: 6128779
Closes#1030
Simplifies away all associated checks, leading to a ~0.5% speedup.
The code now explicitly checks if moves are OK, rather than using nullptr checks.
Verified for no regression:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 32218 W: 5762 L: 5660 D: 20796
No functional change
Closes#1021
This patch removes the empty rows at the beginning and at the end of
MobilityBonus[] and Protector[] arrays:
• reducing the size of MobilityBonus from 768 bytes to 512 bytes
• reducing the size of Protector from 1024 to 512 bytes
Also adds some comments and cleaner code for the arrays in pawns.cpp
No speed penalty (measured speed-up of 0.4%).
No functional change.
Closes#1018
Replaces the HalfDensity array with an equivalent, compact implementation.
Includes suggestions by mcostalba & snicolet.
No functional change
Closes#1004
By defining "strongly protected" as "protected by a pawn, or protected
by two pieces and not attacked by two enemy pieces".
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 17050 W: 3128 L: 2931 D: 10991
Passed LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 120995 W: 15852 L: 15343 D: 89800
Bench : 6269229
Closes#1016
This eliminates alignment padding and reduces size from 48 to 40 bytes.
This makes the material HashTable smaller and more cache friendly.
No functional change
Closes#1013
Initial protective idea by Snicolet for knight, for other pieces too
Patch add penalties and bonuses for pieces, depending on the distance from the own king
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 21192 W: 3919 L: 3704 D: 13569
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 26177 W: 3642 L: 3435 D: 19100
Bench : 6687377
Closes#1012
Positions with pawns on only one flank tend to be more drawish. We add
a term to the initiative bonus to help the attacking player keep pawns
on both flanks.
STC: yellowish run stopped after 257137 games
LLR: -0.92 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 257137 W: 46560 L: 45511 D: 165066
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 15602 W: 2125 L: 1956 D: 11521
Bench : 6976310
Closes#1009
A tuning patch which cover the following changes:
increase the importance of queen and rook mobility in endgame and
decrease it in mg, since if we use the heavy pieces too early in the game
we will just make opponent develop their pieces by threatening ours.
King Psqt:
1)King will be encouraged more to stay in the first ranks in the MG
2)and will be encouraged more to go to the middle of the board/last ranks in the EG
Bishop scale better in EG
Logical changes on various psqt tables
1/6 of the changes of the last tuning session on mobility tables
STC: LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 227879 W: 41240 L: 40313 D: 146326
LTC : LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 167047 W: 21871 L: 21291 D: 123885
Bench: 5695960
Closes#1008
Fixes failing build for
make ARCH=x86-32 clean && make ARCH=x86-32 optimize=no build
by passing -m32 also to the link step.
Extend travis testing accordingly.
No functional change.
Closes#999
Minor non-functional simplifications in computing the scale factor.
In my opinion, the code is now slightly more readable:
- remove one condition which can never be satisfied.
- immediately return instead of assigning the sf variable.
Tested for non-regression:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 62162 W: 11166 L: 11115 D: 39881
No functional change
Closes#992
Also the penalty/bonus function is misleading, we
should simply change it to stat_bonus(depth) for
bonus and -stat_bonus(depth+ ONE_PLY) for extra
penalty.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 11656 W: 2183 L: 2008 D: 7465
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 11152 W: 1531 L: 1377 D: 8244
Bench: 6101931
Results for 20 tests for each version (pgo-builds):
Base Test Diff
Mean 2110519 2118116 -7597
StDev 8727 4906 10112
p-value: 0,774
speedup: 0,004
Further verified for no regression:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5885abd10ebc5915193f79e6
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 21786 W: 3959 L: 3840 D: 13987
No functional change
Move more code into eval_init, removing some
clutter in the main routine.
Write eval_init only from "our" point of view
(do not init the attackedBy[Them] bitboards).
Add mobilityArea to the evalinfo
A few edits while being there
tested for non-regression at STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/587fab230ebc5915193f77d9
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 39585 W: 7183 L: 7094 D: 25308
Non functional change.
After we have taken into account all cheap evaluation
terms, we check whether the score exceeds a given threshold.
If this is the case, we return a scaled down evaluation.
STC:
LLR: 3.35 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 12575 W: 2316 L: 2122 D: 8137
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 67480 W: 9016 L: 8677 D: 49787
Current version is the one rewritten by ceebo
further edited by me.
Bench: 5367704
After the history simplifications, we are only using Value Stats for CounterMoveHistory table. Therefore the parameter CM is not necessary.
No functional change.
Add asserts to check for overflow in Score * int multiplication.
There is no overflow in current master, but it would be easy to
create one as the scale of the current eval does not leave many
spare bits. For instance, adding the following unused variables
in master at the end of evaluate() (line 882 of evaluate.cpp)
overflows:
Score s1 = score * 4; // no overflow
Score s2 = score * 5; // overflow
Assertion failed: (eg_value(result) == (i * eg_value(s))),
function operator*, file ./types.h, line 336.
Same md5 checksum as current master for non debug compiles.
No functional change.
Order the enum and the array the same way they appear around line 250.
Makes it much easier to follow.
Add comments in the array definition and critical rows.
Use same terminology as elsewhere in pawns.cpp
No functional change.
Previously, we had duplicated History:
- one with (piece,to) called History
- one with (from,to) called FromTo
Now that we have only one, rename it to History, which is the generally accepted
name in the chess programming litterature for this technique.
Also correct some comments that had not been updated since the introduction of CMH.
No functional change.
Perform more complex verification and validation.
- signature.sh : extract and optionally compare Bench/Signature/Node count.
- perft.sh : verify perft counts for a number of positions.
- instrumented.sh : run a few commands or uci sequences through valgrind/sanitizer instrumented binaries.
- reprosearch.sh : verify reproducibility of search.
These script can be used from directly from the command line in the src directory.
Update travis script to use these shell scripts.
No functional change.
Now taht we correctly value-initialize Thread objects,
we don't need c'tors anymore because tables will be
zero-initialized by the compier when Thread object
is instanced.
Verified that we have no errors with Valgrind.
No functional change.
If not explicitly initialized in a class constructor,
then all data members are default-initialized when
the corresponing struct/class is instanced.
For array and built-in types (int, char, etc..)
default-initialization is a no-op and we need to
explicitly zero them.
No functional change.
Tested using syzygy bench method:
- 2016 random positions ranging between 3 and 10 pieces
- each searched using bench at depth=10
Same node count (and no speed regression).
No functional change.
EasyMove is cleared after every iteration of the
search if the 3rd move in the PV of the main thread
changes from the previous iteration. Therefore,
clearing EasyMove during a search iteration may be
excessive. The tests show that this is indeed unnecessary.
In the new version the EasyMove variable is used only in
the Thread::search function.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 47719 W: 8438 L: 8362 D: 30919
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 122841 W: 15448 L: 15457 D: 91936
bench: 5468995
Implement a threefold repetition detection. Below are the examples of
problems fixed by this change.
Loosing move in a drawn position.
position fen 8/k7/3p4/p2P1p2/P2P1P2/8/8/K7 w - - 0 1 moves a1a2 a7a8 a2a1
The old code suggested a loosing move "bestmove a8a7", the new code suggests "bestmove a8b7" leading to a draw.
Incorrect evaluation (happened in a real game in TCEC Season 9).
position fen 4rbkr/1q3pp1/b3pn2/7p/1pN5/1P1BBP1P/P1R2QP1/3R2K1 w - - 5 31 moves e3d4 h8h6 d4e3
The old code evaluated it as "cp 0", the new code evaluation is around "cp -50" which is adequate.
Brings 0.5-1 ELO gain. Passes [-3.00,1.00].
STC: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/584ece040ebc5903140c5aea
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 47744 W: 8537 L: 8461 D: 30746
LTC: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/584f134d0ebc5903140c5b37
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 36775 W: 4739 L: 4639 D: 27397
Patch has been rewritten into current form for simplification and
logic slightly changed so that return a draw score if the position
repeats once earlier but after or at the root, or repeats twice
strictly before the root. In its original form, repetition at root
was not returned as an immediate draw.
After retestimng testing both version with SPRT[-3, 1], both passed
succesfully, but this version was chosen becuase more natural. There is
an argument about MultiPV in which an extended draw at root may be sensible.
See discussion here:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/925
For documentation, current version passed both at STC and LTC:
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 51562 W: 9314 L: 9245 D: 33003
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 115663 W: 14904 L: 14906 D: 85853
bench: 5468995
Non-functional changes
a) splitting the threat array to avoid using an enum
b) reorder the scores according to functions where they are used.
c) declarations in evaluate_pieces after the const(s) like elsewhere
d) more compact definitions of KingFlank,
now that we need it also for the PanwLessFlank penalty.
e) reuse CenterFiles in evaluate_space
f) move one line inside next popcount
No functional change.
It was a bit of a hack, without intrinsic value, but rather compensating for the
fact that checks were mistuned.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 88308 W: 15553 L: 15545 D: 57210
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 53115 W: 6741 L: 6662 D: 39712
bench 5468995
Fixes the only exception, in razoring.
The code already does assert(PvNode || (alpha == beta - 1)), and it can be verified by studying the program flow that this is indeed the case, also for the modified line.
No functional change.
make skipEarlyPruning a search argument instead of managing this by hand.
Verified for no regression at STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 96754 W: 17089 L: 17095 D: 62570
No functional change.
* Refactor bonus and penalty calculation
Compute common terms in a helper function.
No functional change.
* Further refactoring
Remove some parenthesis that are now useless.
Define prevSq once, use repeatedly.
No functional change.
bench: 5884767 (bench of previous patch is wrong)
This patch tweaks some pawn values to favor flank attacks.
The first part of the patch increases the midgame psqt values of external pawns to launch more attacks (credits to user GuardianRM for this idea), while the second part increases the endgame connection values for pawns on upper ranks.
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 34997 W: 6328 L: 6055 D: 22614
and LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 13844 W: 1832 L: 1650 D: 10362
Bench: 5884767
GCC compiles builtin_clzll to “63 ^ BSR”. BSR is processor instruction "Bit Scan Reverse".
So old msb() function is basically 63 - 63 ^ BSR.
Unfortunately, GCC fails to simplify this expression.
Old function compiles to
bsrq %rdi, %rdi
movl $63, %eax
xorq $63, %rdi
subl %edi, %eax
ret
New function compiles to
bsrq %rdi, %rax
ret
BTW, Clang compiles both function to the same (optimal) code.
No functional change.
The needed Windows API for processor groups could be missed from old Windows
versions, so instead of calling them directly (forcing the linker to resolve
the calls at compile time), try to load them at runtime. To do this we need
first to define the corresponding function pointers.
Also don't interfere with running fishtest on numa hardware with Windows.
Avoid all stockfish one-threaded processes will run on the same node
No functional change.
This patch fixed bugs #859 and #882.
At initialization we generate a new random key (Zobrist::noPawns).
It's added to the pawn key of all positions, so that the pawn key
of a pawnless position is no longer 0.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 21307 W: 3738 L: 3618 D: 13951
LTC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 45270 W: 5737 L: 5648 D: 33885
No functional change.
Under Windows it is not possible for a process to run on more than one
logical processor group. This usually means to be limited to use max 64
cores. To overcome this, some special platform specific API should be
called to set group affinity for each thread. Original code from Texel by
Peter sterlund.
Tested by Jean-Paul Vael on a Xeon E7-8890 v4 with 88 threads and confimed
speed up between 44 and 88 threads is about 30%, as expected.
No functional change.
This refines the profile-build target to avoid 'touch'ing the sources,
keeping meaningful modification dates and avoiding editor warnings like vi's:
WARNING: The file has been changed since reading it!!!
Do you really want to write to it (y/n)?
Instead of touching sources, the (instrumented) object files are removed,
which has the same effect of rebuilding them in the next step.
As a side effect, this simplifies the Makefile a bit.
No functional change.
A position can never repeat the one on the previous move.
Thus we can start searching for a repetition from the 4th
ply behind. In the case:
std::min(st->rule50, st->pliesFromNull) < 4
We don't need to do any more calculations. This case happens
very often - in more than a half of all calls of the function.
No functional change.
Anonymous struct inside anonymous unions are a GCC extension.
This patch uses named structs to stick to the C+11 standard.
Avoids a string of warnings on the Clang compiler.
Non functional change (same bench and same MD5 signature,
so compiled code is exactly the same as in current master)
Makes the actual number of nodes searched match closely
the number of nodes requested, by increasing the frequency
of checking the number of nodes searched at low node count.
All other searches retain the default checking frequency of
once per 4096 nodes, and are thus unaffected.
Passed STC as non-regression
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 26643 W: 4766 L: 4655 D: 17222
No functional change.
In 10 of 12 calls total to Position::do_move()the givesCheck argument is
simply gives_check(m). So it's reasonable to make an overload without
this parameter, which wraps the existing version.
No functional change.
Currently, we only check if there is a pawn in place
to make the en-passant capture. Now also check that
there is a pawn that could just have advanced two
squares. Also update the corresponding comment.
This makes the parsing of FENs a bit more robust, and
now correctly handles positions like the one reported by Dann Corbit.
position fen rnbqkb1r/ppp3pp/3p1n2/3P4/8/2P5/PP3PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq e6
d
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| r | n | b | q | k | b | | r |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| p | p | p | | | | p | p |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | p | | n | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | P | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | P | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| P | P | | | | P | P | P |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| R | N | B | Q | K | B | | R |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Fen: rnbqkb1r/ppp3pp/3p1n2/3P4/8/2P5/PP3PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 1
No functional change.
Non functional change, tests under sanitizers OK.
Rationales for change
- Offset in code is in range -4 ... 2
- There was an error by (pathological) corner case MAX_PLY=0
No functional change.
Casting a pointer to a different type with stricter alignment
requirements yields to implementation dependent behaviour.
Practicaly everything is fine for common platforms because the
CPU/OS/compiler will generate correct code, but anyhow it is
better to be safe than sorry.
Testing with dbg_hit_on() shows that the unalignment accesses are
very rare (below 0.1%) so it makes sense to split the code in a
fast path for the common case and a slower path as a fallback.
No functional change (verified with TB enabled).
Small fixes for compilation with sanitize=yes optimize=no,
by always adding -fsanitize=undefined to the LDFLAGS as required.
Updates config-sanity to check&report the status of the flag.
No functional change.
Rewrite the code in SF style, simplify and
document it.
Code is now much clear and bug free (no mem-leaks and
other small issues) and is also smaller (more than
600 lines of code removed).
All the code has been rewritten but root_probe() and
root_probe_wdl() that are completely misplaced and should
be retired altogheter. For now just leave them in the
original version.
Code is fully and deeply tested for equivalency both in
functionality and in speed with hundreds of games and
test positions and is guaranteed to be 100% equivalent
to the original.
Tested with tb_dbg branch for functional equivalency on
more than 12M positions.
stockfish.exe bench 128 1 16 syzygy.epd
Position: 2016/2016
Total 12121156 Hits 0 hit rate (%) 0
Total time (ms) : 4417851
Nodes searched : 1100151204
Nodes/second : 249024
Tested with 5,000 games match against master, 1 Thread,
128 MB Hash each, tc 40+0.4, which is almost equivalent
to LTC in Fishtest on this machine. 3-, 4- and 5-men syzygy
bases on SSD, 12-moves opening book to emphasize mid- and endgame.
Score of SF-SyzygyC++ vs SF-Master: 633 - 617 - 3750 [0.502] 5000
ELO difference: 1
No functional change.
Avoid shifting negative signed integers and use typed
enum to avoids decrementing a variable beyond its defined
range, like:
for (Rank r = RANK_8; r >= RANK_1; --r)
Changes were tested individually and passed SPRT[-3, 1].
With this patch gcc --sanitize builds cleanly.
No functional change.
Instead of outputting "info nodes ... time ..." when the last
iteration is interrupted, simply call UCI::pv() to output the PV.
I thought about calling UCI:pv() with bounds -VALUE_INFINITE, VALUE_INFINITE
to avoid "lowerbound" or "upperbound" appearing in it, but I'm not sure that
would be any better.
This patch fixes rare inconsistencies between the first move of
the last PV output and the bestmove played. It also makes sure
that all the latest statistics are sent to the GUI (not only nodes
and time but also nps, tbhits, hashfull).
No functional change.
Restore original behaviour to reset
the counter before a new move search.
Also fixed some warnings and added const
qualifier to a couple of functions, as
suggested by m_stembera.
Thanks to Werner Bergmans for reporting
the regression.
No functional change.
Use a per-thread counter to reduce contention
with many cores and endgame positions.
Measured around 1% speed-up on a 12 core and 8%
on 28 cores with 6-men, searching on:
7R/1p3k2/2p2P2/3nR1P1/8/3b1P2/7K/r7 b - - 3 38
Also retire the unused set_nodes_searched() and fix
a couple of return types and naming conventions.
No functional change.
For a default bench, this fixes the last valgrind
error (jump on uninitialised value).
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 187869 W: 33303 L: 33463 D: 121103
No functional change.
We reference (ss-1)->currentMove, i.e. we peek
current move of the parent node, so currentMove
should be valid in the main move loop, when we
search() the subtree, but outside of main loop
it is useless.
No functional change.
Also a speedup since we don't need to recalculate SEE
for extensions...as it already determined to be positive.
Results for 12 tests for each version:
Base Test Diff
Mean 2132395 2191002 -58607
StDev 128058 85917 134239
p-value: 0.669
speedup: 0.027
Non functional change.
The target:
Odroid U3 (http://www.hardkernel.com/main/products/prdt_info.php?g_code=g138745696275)
Debian Jessie
As listed in #550 and #638 three modifications are needed for compilation to work:
float-abi flag for GCC If an FPU is present and supported by the installed os then passed value need to be hard.
I didn't find any better solution than using readelf to check for the availibilty of Tag_ABI_VFP_args which sould indicate support for the FPU. The check is only done if the arch is arm and if readelf is not present
on the system, there will be an error (/bin/sh: 1: readelf: not found) but it will not break and will continue with the default softfp value. Outputing the error is not really acceptable but I wanted some feedback on the
check itself.
-lpthread is needed on armv7 outside of Android
I replaced UNAME with KERNEL and OS to allow to differentiate Android.
m32 flag
My understanding is that outside of Android the flag is generating errors on armv7.
These modifications should introduce change only for non Android armv7 build.
No functional change.
The target:
Odroid U3 (http://www.hardkernel.com/main/products/prdt_info.php?g_code=g138745696275)
Debian Jessie
As listed in #550 and #638 three modifications are needed for compilation to work:
float-abi flag for GCC If an FPU is present and supported by the installed os then passed value need to be hard.
I didn't find any better solution than using readelf to check for the availibilty of Tag_ABI_VFP_args which sould indicate support for the FPU. The check is only done if the arch is arm and if readelf is not present
on the system, there will be an error (/bin/sh: 1: readelf: not found) but it will not break and will continue with the default softfp value. Outputing the error is not really acceptable but I wanted some feedback on the
check itself.
-lpthread is needed on armv7 outside of Android
I replaced UNAME with KERNEL and OS to allow to differentiate Android.
m32 flag
My understanding is that outside of Android the flag is generating errors on armv7.
These modifications should introduce change only for non Android armv7 build.
No functional change.
Stephane's patch removes the only usage of Position::see, where the
returned value isn't immediately compared with a value. So I replaced
this function by its optimised and more specific version see_ge. This
function also supersedes the function Position::see_sign.
bool Position::see_ge(Move m, Value v) const;
This function tests if the SEE of a move is greater or equal than a
given value. We use forward iteration on captures instread of backward
one, therefore we don't need the swapList array. Also we stop as soon
as we have enough information to obtain the result, avoiding unnecessary
calls to the min_attacker function.
Speed tests (Windows 7), 20 runs for each engine:
Test engine: mean 866648, st. dev. 5964
Base engine: mean 846751, st. dev. 22846
Speedup: 1.023
Speed test by Stephane Nicolet
Fishtest STC test:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 26040 W: 4675 L: 4442 D: 16923
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/57f648990ebc59038170fa03
No functional change.
This is a bit tricky because we don't want
to prune the only legal evasions, even if
with negative SEE. So add an assert to avoid
this subtle bug to slip in later.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 14140 W: 2625 L: 2421 D: 9094
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 11558 W: 1555 L: 1379 D: 8624
bench: 5256717
Rename shift_bb() to shift(), and DELTA_S to SOUTH, etc.
to improve code readability, especially in evaluate.cpp
when they are used together:
old b = shift_bb<DELTA_S>(pos.pieces(PAWN))
new b = shift<SOUTH>(pos.pieces(PAWN))
While there fix some small code style issues.
No functional change.
Drop useless condition
abs(ttValue) < VALUE_KNOWN_WIN
And extend singular extension search to cases when ttValue
stores a mate score. This improves mate finding and does
not introduce any regression.
Yery tested this patch against current master on the 6500+
Chest mate suite with 200K fixed nodes:
shortest mates found: master: 1206 patch:1205
any mate found: master: 1903 patch: 2003
with 1 sec time:
shortest mates found: master: 2667 patch: 2628
any mate found: master: 3585 patch: 3646
Verified for no regression:
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 25655 W: 4578 L: 4465 D: 16612
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 66247 W: 8618 L: 8557 D: 49072
bench: 6335042
Both Tablebases::filter_root_moves() and
extract_ponder_from_tt(9 were unable to handle
a mate/stalemate position.
Spotted and reported by Dann Corbit.
Added some mate/stalemate positions to bench so
to early catch this regression in the future.
No functional change.
Use the following transformations:
- to check that A is included in B, testing "(A & ~B) == 0" is faster
than "(A & B) == A"
- to remove the intersection of A and B from A, doing "A &= ~B;" is as
fast as "if (A & B) A &= ~B;" but is simpler.
Overall, the simpler patch version is 0.3% than current master.
No functional change.
Correct pinners calculation and fix bug with pinned
pieces giving check. With this patch 'pinners' only
returns sliders with exactly one defensive piece between
the slider and the attacked square (in other words, pinners
returns exact pinners).
This was a co-operation between Marco Costalba,
Stphane Nicolet and me.
Special thanks to Ronald de Man for reporting the bug with
pinned pieces giving check, discussed here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/fishcooking/S_4E_Xs5HaE
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 132118 W: 23578 L: 23645 D: 84895
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 36424 W: 4770 L: 4670 D: 26984
bench: 6272231
Instrumentation shows that in make_score(mg, eg) calls, the mg value is
zero in 25,9% of the calls while the eg value is zero in 36,8% of the
calls.
Swapping the internal fields of mg and eg in the internal
representation of Score allows the compiler to optimize away the shift
in (eg << 16) + mg in more cases, thus resulting in a 0.3% speed-up
overall.
No functional change
Rescales the king danger variables in evaluate_king() to
suppress the KingDanger[] array. This avoids the cost of
the memory accesses to the array and simplifies the non-linear
transformation used.
Full credits to "hxim" for the seminal idea and implementation,
see pull request #786.
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/786
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 9649 W: 1829 L: 1689 D: 6131
Passed LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 53494 W: 7254 L: 7178 D: 39062
Bench: 6116200
Drops a scalability bottleneck due to memory contention
of a single shared table across threads. The effect starts
to be sensible with a high number of threads. Specifically
we have a small regression with 7 threads both at 60 and
180 seconds TC:
10000 @ 60+0.6 th 7
ELO: -2.46 +-3.2 (95%) LOS: 6.5%
Total: 9896 W: 1037 L: 1107 D: 7752
5000 @ 180+0.6 th 7
ELO: -1.95 +-4.1 (95%) LOS: 17.7%
Total: 5000 W: 444 L: 472 D: 4084
We have a regression because counterMoveHistory table is
quite big and it takes time for a single thread to fill it.
Sharing the table yields to a higher fill rate and better
quality of moves and up to 7 threads the benefits of sharing
more then compensate the loss in speed due to contention.
Interestingly even with a 3X longer TC, so with more time
for the single thread to catch up, the improvment is quite
limited and below noise level. It seems we really need much
longer TC to saturate the table.
When we move to high threads number it's another story:
5000 @ 60+0.6 th 22
ELO: 3.49 +-4.3 (95%) LOS: 94.6%
Total: 4880 W: 490 L: 441 D: 3949
2000 @ 60+0.6 th 32
ELO: 8.34 +-6.9 (95%) LOS: 99.1%
Total: 2000 W: 229 L: 181 D: 1590
As expected the speed-up more than compensates the filling
rate, and we expect that with tournament TC, where single
thread is able to saturate the table, the difference will
be even stronger. For instance for TCEC 9 super-final time
control will be 180 minutes + 15 seconds and this scalability
improvement seems definitely the way to go.
So, summarizing:
GOOD:
Measured big improvement in high core scenario
Suitable for TCEC 9 superfinal (big hardware, very long TC)
Consistent and natural patch that extends to counterMoveHistory
what we already do for remaining history tables, that are all per-thread
Non functional change for the common case of a single core
Very simple (just 6 lines modified, no added ones)
BAD:
Small regression (within 2-3 ELO) with few threads and short TC
bench: 5341477
Measured bench speed up goes from 0,7% to 2%,
given the unreliable measure a reverse simmplification
test was done on fishtest:
master vs patch
LLR: -2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 15499 W: 2685 L: 2867 D: 9947
Test result is positive, master is weaker.
No functional change.
This is the most compact and neatest version
is was able to produce.
On normal builds I have a small slowdown:
normal builds base vs. simplification (gcc 4.8.1 Win7-64 i7-3770 @ 3.4GHz x86-64-modern)
Results for 20 tests for each version:
Base Test Diff
Mean 1974744 1969333 5411
StDev 11825 10281 5874
p-value: 0,178
speedup: -0,003
On pgo-builds however I measure a nice 1.1% speedup
pgo-builds base vs. simplification
Results for 20 tests for each version:
Base Test Diff
Mean 1974119 1995444 -21325
StDev 8703 5717 4623
p-value: 1
speedup: 0,011
No functional change.
Don't allow pinned pieces to attack the exchange-square as long all
pinners (this includes also potential ones) are on their original
square.
As soon a pinner moves to the exchange-square or get captured on it, we
fall back to standard SEE behaviour.
This correctly handles the majority of cases with absolute pins.
bench: 6883133
In evaluate, we start by initializing the pos.psq_score
and adding the material imbalance. After that, we check
whether a specialized eval exists and if yes we return
that value and discard whatever we have computed until now.
It sounds more logical to first probe material entry and
return if we have a specialized eval, and only if it is
not the case initialize eval with some values. There is
no measurable speed-difference on my computer.
Non functional change.
In case we have installed a not complete set of 6-men tables and
there is 6 piece position on board, but no corresponding
tablebase engine is not using any syzygy at all.
Reported by Jouni Uski, fix by Peter Österlund,
confirmed as a bug by Ronald de Man.
bench: 7591630
If the opponent has a cramped position, opening a file often
helps him/her to exchange pieces, so it makes sense to reduce
the space bonus if there are open files.
Credits: Leonardo Ljubičić for the strategic idea, Alain Savard for the
implementation of the open files calculation, "CrunchyNYC" for the
compensation of the numerator.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 49112 W: 9239 L: 8900 D: 30973
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 89415 W: 12014 L: 11601 D: 65800
Bench: 7591630
This greately simplifies usage because hides to the
search the implementation specific CheckInfo.
This is based on the work done by Marco in pull request #716,
implementing on top of it the ideas in the discussion: caching
the calls to slider_blockers() in the CheckInfo structure,
and simplifying the slider_blockers() function by removing its
first parameter.
Compared to master, bench is identical but the number of calls
to slider_blockers() during bench goes down from 22461515 to 18853422,
hopefully being a little bit faster overall.
archlinux, gcc-6
make profile-build ARCH=x86-64-bmi2
50 runs each
bench:
base = 2356320 +/- 981
test = 2403811 +/- 981
diff = 47490 +/- 1828
speedup = 0.0202
P(speedup > 0) = 1.0000
perft 6:
base = 175498484 +/- 429925
test = 183997959 +/- 429925
diff = 8499474 +/- 469401
speedup = 0.0484
P(speedup > 0) = 1.0000
perft 7 (but only 10 runs):
base = 185403228 +/- 468705
test = 188777591 +/- 468705
diff = 3374363 +/- 476687
speedup = 0.0182
P(speedup > 0) = 1.0000
$ ./pyshbench ../Stockfish/master ../Stockfish/test 20
run base test diff
...
base = 2501728 +/- 182034
test = 2532997 +/- 182034
diff = 31268 +/- 5116
speedup = 0.0125
P(speedup > 0) = 1.0000
No functional change.
This non-functional change patch is a deep work to allow SF to be independent
from the actual value of ONE_PLY (currently set to 1). I have verified SF is
now independent for ONE_PLY values 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and 256.
This patch gives consistency to search code and enables future work, opening
the door to safely tweaking the ONE_PLY value for any reason.
Verified for no speed regression at STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 95643 W: 17728 L: 17737 D: 60178
No functional change.
Rewritten in a way to have explicit in the search
the bonus/penalty we apply: hopefully this will lead
to further simplification/fix of current rather messy
stats update code.
No functional change.
STC: (Yellow)
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 69115 W: 12880 L: 12797 D: 43438
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 124163 W: 16923 L: 16442 D: 90798
Note: Note based off past experiments / patches... history pruning
is quite TC sensitive. I believe the reason for this TC dependency
is that the CMH/FMH is a very large table that takes time to fill
up with. In addition having more time for will increase the accuracy
of the stats' value.
Bench: 7351698
GCC uses SSE instructions to move data but in 32-bit gcc version used
by abrok the stack is not 16-byte aligned due to a bug.
This patch workaround teh bug by not using the stack
to store KingFlank[]
Fixes issue #721.
No functional change.
Checking for legality of a possible ponder move
must be done before we undo the first pv move,
of course. (spotted by mohammed li.)
This obviously only has any effect when playing in ponder mode.
No functional change.
Take advantage that VALUE_NONE = 32002 to remove
the condition.
Commented out and not removed becuase it is tricky
to rely on the hidden value of VALUE_NONE and code
can break in case we change VALUE_NONE in the future.
No functional change.
This code was added before the accurate pv patch, when
we retrieved PV directly from TT.
It's not required for correct (and long) PVs any more and
should be safe to remove it.
Also, allowing helper threads to repeatedly over-write
TT doesn't seem to make sense(that was probably an un-intended
side-effect of lazy smp). Before Lazy SMP only Main Thread used
to run ID loop and insert PV into TT.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 74346 W: 13946 L: 13918 D: 46482
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 47265 W: 6531 L: 6447 D: 34287
bench: 8819179
Allow to specifiy the log file name, this comes
handy in case of self-matches so that each SF
instance writes into a different log file.
No functional change.
Currently root moves are copied to all teh threads
but are DTZ filtered only in main thread at the
beginning of teh search.
This patch moves the TB filtering before the
copy of root moves fixing issue #679https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/679
No bench change.
There are two concepts with this patch:
Limit check extensions by using move count.
The idea is to limit search explosion.
Always extend check if the first move gives check.
The idea is to save expensive SEE calls, since the vast
majority of first move will have SEE value >= 0, also
first move may still be strong even if the SEE is negative.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 16503 W: 3068 L: 2873 D: 10562
LTC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 37202 W: 5261 L: 5014 D: 26927
bench: 8543366
Moving a few lines from evaluate_threats to evaluate_pieces allows to
a) Remove a condition pos.count<QUEEN>(Them) == 1
b) use precalculated s instead of pos.square(Them)
c) do not check the condition at all in queenless endings
Passed STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5752e0410ebc59029919b1f4
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 67175 W: 12194 L: 12152 D: 42829
and LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/57587b140ebc59029919b2f4
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 20276 W: 2774 L: 2653 D: 14849
bench: 7907962
In this position: 3K4/8/3k4/8/4p3/4B3/5P2/8 w - - 0 5
Current DTZ probe returns 1 instead of 15
What happens is that the double push f4 is erroneously detected as a win move.
After the push we have:
[D]3K4/8/3k4/8/4pP2/4B3/8/8 b - f3 0 5
And here the code misses the possible ep capture exf3.
The bug is in probe_dtz_no_ep() where is used probe_ab() that is
blind to ep captures so it returns v == 2 (win) for position
3K4/8/3k4/8/4pP2/4B3/8/8 b - f3 0 5
Note that at the caller site the original position did not have any
possible ep capture, so probe_dtz() returns immediately after calling
probe_dtz_no_ep().
The fix is to call the ep-aware probe_wdl() instead of probe_ab()
I have verified that DTZ is correct now and also there are no more
mistmatches compared to the new 'syzygy' branch. Tested on a set of
more than 600 endgame positions, included some tricky ones.
For people interested to redo the test or doing additional tests
please pull branch tb_dbg from https://github.com/mcostalba/Stockfish repo.
bench: 8450534 (bench unaffected because syzygy is not exercized during bench)
A middle ground patch of two successful tuning patches,
one at STC, the other at LTC, which now passed both.
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 67893 W: 12777 L: 12384 D: 42732
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 30165 W: 4189 L: 3960 D: 22016
bench: 9209507
Introducing a new multi-purpose penalty related to King safety, which
includes all kind of potential checks (from unsafe or unavailable
squares currently occupied by some other piece)
This will indirectly detect and reward some pins, discovered checks, and
motifs such as square vacation, or rook behind its pawn and aligned with
King (example Black Rg8, g7 against Kg1),
and penalize some pawn blockers (if they move, it allows a discovered
check by the pawn).
And since it looks also at protected squares, it detects some potential
defense overloading.
Finally, the rook contact checks had been removed some time ago. This
test will give a small bonus for them, as well as for bishop contact
checks.
Passed STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5729ec740ebc59301a354b36
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 13306 W: 2477 L: 2296 D: 8533
and LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/572a5be00ebc59301a354b65
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 20369 W: 2750 L: 2565 D: 15054
bench: 9298175
Just use _mm_popcnt_u64() that is available
both for MSVC abd Intel compiler.
Verified on MSVC that the produced assembly
has the hardware 'popcnt' instruction.
No functional change.
Currently, helper threads will only search up to the
specified depth limit. Now let them search until the
main thread has finished the specified depth.
On the other hand, we don't want to pick a thread with
a higher search depth.
This may be considered cheating. ;-)
No functional change.
It seems that icc used our fallback version of popcount.
Now use intrinsics.
icc version 16.0.2 (gcc version 5.3.0 compatibility)
bmi2 compile
uname -r 4.5.1-1-ARCH
20xbench gives a nice speedup
./stockfish-icc-master 2161515 +- 34462
./stockfish-icc-sse42 2260857 +- 50349
I could not find anything documented that is necessary that prepending -mbmi to -mbmi2 gives some benefit.
Instead at
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/x86-Built-in-Functions.html#x86-Built-in-Functions
The following built-in functions are available when -mbmi is used. All of them generate the machine instruction that is part of the name.
unsigned int __builtin_ia32_bextr_u32(unsigned int, unsigned int);
unsigned long long __builtin_ia32_bextr_u64 (unsigned long long, unsigned long long);
The following built-in functions are available when -mbmi2 is used. All of them generate the machine instruction that is part of the name.
unsigned int _bzhi_u32 (unsigned int, unsigned int)
unsigned int _pdep_u32 (unsigned int, unsigned int)
unsigned int _pext_u32 (unsigned int, unsigned int)
unsigned long long _bzhi_u64 (unsigned long long, unsigned long long)
unsigned long long _pdep_u64 (unsigned long long, unsigned long long)
unsigned long long _pext_u64 (unsigned long long, unsigned long long)
and at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-02/msg00204.html
( "... The real optimization comes from being able to use pext
(parallel bit extract), which can implement several bextr expressions in
parallel.")
Apart from that we don't use all -msse -msse2 -msse3 -msse4.2 etc. but just -msse3 (or -msse4.2) only.
As regards to the speedup within noise level - this pull request is actually reversal of mcostalba#198 wherein prepending -mbmi to -mbmi2 was claimed to be 0.3% faster and here (removing -mbmi) gives 0.4% speed gain.
Seems to give around 1% speed-up for CPUs with popcnt support.
Seems to give a very minor speed-up for CPUs without popcnt.
No functional change
Resolves#646
In this position we should have draw for repetition:
position fen rnbqkbnr/2pppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1 moves g1f3 g8f6 f3g1
go infinite
But latest patch broke it.
Actually we had two(!) very subtle bugs, the first is that Position::set()
clears the passed state and in particular 'previous' member, so
that on passing setupStates, 'previous' pointer was reset.
Second bug is even more subtle: SetupStates was based on std::vector
as container, but when vector grows, std::vector copies all its contents
to a new location invalidating all references to its entries. Because
all StateInfo records are linked by 'previous' pointer, this made pointers
go stale upon adding more element to setupStates. So revert to use a
std::deque that ensures references are preserved when pushing back new
elements.
No functional change.
And passed in do_move(), this ensures maximum efficiency and
speed and at the same time unlimited move numbers.
The draw back is that to handle Position init we need to
reserve a StateInfo inside Position itself and use at
init time and when copying from another Position.
After lazy SMP we don't need anymore this gimmick and we can
get rid of this special case and always pass an external
StateInfo to Position object.
Also rewritten and simplified Position constructors.
Verified it does not regress with a 3 threads SMP test:
ELO: -0.00 +-12.7 (95%) LOS: 50.0%
Total: 1000 W: 173 L: 173 D: 654
No functional change.
When starting search in a mate or stalemate position, Stockfish does not
even care to reinitialize and start worker threads. However after search
all threads are checked for the best move.
This can lead to bestmove and info beeing carried over from the last
search.
Example session:
setoption name threads value 7
go movetime 4000
position startpos moves f2f3 e7e5 g2g4 d8h4
go movetime 4000
Actual output is like (almost always):
[...]
bestmove e2e4
info depth 0 score mate 0
info depth 20 seldepth 29 multipv 1 score cp 28 [...] pv e2e4
bestmove e2e4
Expected output / output after fix:
[...]
bestmove e2e4 ponder e7e6
info depth 0 score mate 0
bestmove (none)
Resolves#623
Broken after "32-bit/64-bit Makefile fix" commit.
Ubuntu "Precise" 12.04.5 supports multilib only until
g++ 4.6 that is not enough to compile Stockfish.
So move to Ubuntu 14.04.4 LTS (Trusty Tahr)
No functional change.
There was already a penalty for squares only defended by King (undefended)
This test records a penalty for completely undefended squares in the so called extended king-ring
(so if we exclude squares defended by a Kg8 for example, we only look at h6 g6 and f6)
We also exclude squares occupied by opponent pieces in this computation,
based on the following results
Was yellow at STC
LLR: -2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 112499 W: 20649 L: 20293 D: 71557
and passed LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 36805 W: 5100 L: 4857 D: 26848
Bench: 8430233
Resolves: #619
On top of the usual conditions
a) some opponent in front (but no lever)
b) some neighbours (in front) (but no neighbour behind or same rank)
c) < rank_5
to find out if a pawn is backward we look at the squares in front of this pawn to reach the same rank as the next neighbour.
In current master, a pawn is backward if any of those squares is controlled by an enemy pawn on an adjacent file
In this version, a pawn is ALSO backward if any of those squares is occupied by an enemy pawn.
STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/56fe7efd0ebc59301a3541f1
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 19051 W: 3557 L: 3433 D: 12061
LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/56febc2d0ebc59301a354209
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40810 W: 5619 L: 5526 D: 29665
Bench: 7525245
Resolves#614
Also a speedup(about 1%) on 64-bit w/o hardware popcnt
Retire Max15 and Full template parameters
(Contributed by Marco Costalba)
Now that we have just SW and HW versions, use
template default parameter to get rid of explicit
template parameters.
Retire bitcount.h and move the only defined
function to bitboard.h
No functional change
Resolves#620
Counter intuitively, make build ARCH=x86-32 does NOT produce a 32-bit compile
when running a 64-bit OS. Nor would ARCH=x86-64 produce a 64-bit compile when
running a 32-bit OS (assuming it compiled w/o errors).
No functional change
Resolves#621
lsb(b) and msb(b) are undefined when b == 0. This can lead to subtle bugs, where
the resulting code behaves differently on different configurations:
- It can be the home grown software LSB/MSB
- It can be the compiler generated software LSB/MSB (when using compiler
intrinsics without the right compiler flags to allow compiler to use hardware
LSB/MSB). Which of course depends on the compiler.
- It can be hardware LSB/MSB generated by the compiler.
- Not to mention that hardware LSB/MSB can return different value on different
hardware when b == 0.
No functional change
Resolves#610
Use compiler intrinsics when possible to
avoid writing platform specific asm code.
Tested on Windows 7 with MSVC 2013 and mingw 4.8.3 (32 and 64 bit)
and on Linux Mint with g++ 4.8.4 and clang 3.4 (32 and 64 bit).
No functional change
Resolves#609
Give more weight to the pawns number and
the vertical king distance in evaluate_initiative()
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 26729 W: 5067 L: 4825 D: 16837
and LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 60480 W: 8338 L: 8016 D: 44126
Bench: 8295162
Resolves#594
PredictedDepth can be negative, causing the futility_margin to be negative.
It will be very difficult to tweak moveCount pruning and reduction formula, as they are tuned to prevent this behavior.
No functional change
Resolves#587
There is no reason to compile 3 different copies of search(). PV nodes are on
the cold path, and PvNode is a template parameter, so there is no cost in
computing:
const bool RootNode = PvNode && (ss-1)->ply == 0;
And this simplifies code a tiny bit as well.
Speed impact is negligible on my machine (i7-3770k, linux 4.2, gcc 5.2):
nps +/-
test 2378605 3118
master 2383128 2793
diff -4523 2746
Bench: 7751425
No functional change.
Resolves#568
- COMPILER=clang++ V='Apple LLVM 6.0'# Apple LLVM version 6.0 (clang-600.0.54) (based on LLVM 3.5svn)
- COMPILER=clang++
- COMP=clang
branches:
@@ -42,8 +43,38 @@ before_script:
- cd src
script:
- make clean && make build ARCH=x86-64 && ./stockfish bench 2>&1 >/dev/null | grep 'Nodes searched' | tee bench1
- make clean && make build ARCH=x86-32 && ./stockfish bench 2>&1 >/dev/null | grep 'Nodes searched' | tee bench2
- echo "Checking for same bench numbers..."
- diff bench1 bench2 > result
- test ! -s result
# Obtain bench reference from git log
- git log HEAD | grep "\b[Bb]ench[ :]\+[0-9]\{7\}" | head -n 1 | sed "s/[^0-9]*\([0-9]*\).*/\1/g" > git_sig
- export benchref=$(cat git_sig)
- echo "Reference bench:" $benchref
#
# Compiler version string
- $COMPILER -v
#
# Verify bench number against various builds
- export CXXFLAGS="-Werror -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG"
- make clean && make -j2 ARCH=x86-64 optimize=no debug=yes build && ../tests/signature.sh $benchref
- if [[ "$TRAVIS_OS_NAME" == "linux" ]]; then make clean && make -j2 ARCH=x86-32 optimize=no debug=yes build && ../tests/signature.sh $benchref; fi
- if [[ "$TRAVIS_OS_NAME" == "linux" ]]; then make clean && make -j2 ARCH=x86-32 build && ../tests/signature.sh $benchref; fi
#
# Check perft and reproducible search
- export CXXFLAGS="-Werror"
- make clean && make -j2 ARCH=x86-64 build
- ../tests/perft.sh
- ../tests/reprosearch.sh
#
# Valgrind
#
- export CXXFLAGS="-O1 -fno-inline"
- if [ -x "$(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 "$(command -v valgrind )" ]; then ../tests/instrumented.sh --valgrind-thread; fi
#
# Sanitizer
#
- if [[ "$TRAVIS_OS_NAME" == "linux" ]]; then make clean && make -j2 ARCH=x86-64 sanitize=undefined optimize=no debug=yes build > /dev/null && ../tests/instrumented.sh --sanitizer-undefined; fi
- if [[ "$TRAVIS_OS_NAME" == "linux" ]]; then make clean && make -j2 ARCH=x86-64 sanitize=thread optimize=no debug=yes build > /dev/null && ../tests/instrumented.sh --sanitizer-thread; fi
are already enabled and no configuration is needed.
### Support on Windows
The use of large pages requires "Lock Pages in Memory" privilege. See
[Enable the Lock Pages in Memory Option (Windows)](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/database-engine/configure-windows/enable-the-lock-pages-in-memory-option-windows)
on how to enable this privilege. Logout/login may be needed
afterwards. Due to memory fragmentation, it may not always be
possible to allocate large pages even when enabled. A reboot
might alleviate this problem. To determine whether large pages
are in use, see the engine log.
## Compiling Stockfish yourself from the sources
Stockfish has support for 32 or 64-bit CPUs, certain hardware
instructions, big-endian machines such as Power PC, and other platforms.
On Unix-like systems, it should be easy to compile Stockfish
directly from the source code with the included Makefile in the folder
`src`. In general it is recommended to run `make help` to see a list of make
targets with corresponding descriptions.
```
cd src
make help
make build ARCH=x86-64-modern
```
When not using the Makefile to compile (for instance with Microsoft MSVC) you
need to manually set/unset some switches in the compiler command line; see
file *types.h* for a quick reference.
When reporting an issue or a bug, please tell us which version and
compiler you used to create your executable. These informations can
be found by typing the following commands in a console:
```
./stockfish
compiler
```
## Understanding the code base and participating in the project
Stockfish's improvement over the last couple of years has been a great
community effort. There are a few ways to help contribute to its growth.
### Donating hardware
Improving Stockfish requires a massive amount of testing. You can donate
your hardware resources by installing the [Fishtest Worker](https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/wiki/Running-the-worker:-overview)
and view the current tests on [Fishtest](https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests).
### Improving the code
If you want to help improve the code, there are several valuable resources:
* [In this wiki,](https://www.chessprogramming.org) many techniques used in
Stockfish are explained with a lot of background information.
* [The section on Stockfish](https://www.chessprogramming.org/Stockfish)
describes many features and techniques used by Stockfish. However, it is
generic rather than being focused on Stockfish's precise implementation.
Nevertheless, a helpful resource.
* The latest source can always be found on [GitHub](https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish).
Discussions about Stockfish take place in the [FishCooking](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/fishcooking)
group and engine testing is done on [Fishtest](https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests).
If you want to help improve Stockfish, please read this [guideline](https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/wiki/Creating-my-first-test)
first, where the basics of Stockfish development are explained.
## Terms of use
Stockfish is free, and distributed under the **GNU General Public License version 3**
(GPL v3). Essentially, this means that you are free to do almost exactly
what you want with the program, including distributing it among your
friends, making it available for download from your web site, selling
it (either by itself or as part of some bigger software package), or
using it as the starting point for a software project of your own.
The only real limitation is that whenever you distribute Stockfish in
some way, you must always include the full source code, or a pointer
to where the source code can be found. If you make any changes to the
source code, these changes must also be made available under the GPL.
For full details, read the copy of the GPL v3 found in the file named
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.
Daylen Yang
