2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
/*
|
2008-10-19 10:56:28 -06:00
|
|
|
Stockfish, a UCI chess playing engine derived from Glaurung 2.1
|
|
|
|
Copyright (C) 2004-2008 Tord Romstad (Glaurung author)
|
2016-01-02 02:43:25 -07:00
|
|
|
Copyright (C) 2008-2015 Marco Costalba, Joona Kiiski, Tord Romstad
|
2017-01-11 00:46:29 -07:00
|
|
|
Copyright (C) 2015-2017 Marco Costalba, Joona Kiiski, Gary Linscott, Tord Romstad
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2008-10-19 10:56:28 -06:00
|
|
|
Stockfish is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
|
|
|
|
the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
|
|
|
|
(at your option) any later version.
|
2008-09-03 15:33:49 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2008-10-19 10:56:28 -06:00
|
|
|
Stockfish is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
|
|
|
|
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
|
|
|
|
GNU General Public License for more details.
|
2008-09-03 15:33:49 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
|
|
|
|
along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
2011-12-12 09:55:20 -07:00
|
|
|
#include <algorithm>
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
#include <cassert>
|
2010-01-19 03:48:22 -07:00
|
|
|
#include <cmath>
|
2014-12-30 02:31:50 -07:00
|
|
|
#include <cstring> // For std::memset
|
2011-12-25 01:04:28 -07:00
|
|
|
#include <iostream>
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
#include <sstream>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include "evaluate.h"
|
2014-12-08 00:23:09 -07:00
|
|
|
#include "misc.h"
|
2009-06-11 07:11:08 -06:00
|
|
|
#include "movegen.h"
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
#include "movepick.h"
|
2016-09-17 00:19:06 -06:00
|
|
|
#include "position.h"
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
#include "search.h"
|
2010-07-11 10:23:50 -06:00
|
|
|
#include "timeman.h"
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
#include "thread.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "tt.h"
|
2014-10-26 00:09:19 -06:00
|
|
|
#include "uci.h"
|
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
|
|
|
#include "syzygy/tbprobe.h"
|
2014-11-25 16:45:28 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-11-26 04:07:35 -07:00
|
|
|
namespace Search {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LimitsType Limits;
|
2014-11-30 04:14:14 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
|
|
|
namespace Tablebases {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
int Cardinality;
|
|
|
|
bool RootInTB;
|
|
|
|
bool UseRule50;
|
|
|
|
Depth ProbeDepth;
|
|
|
|
Value Score;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
namespace TB = Tablebases;
|
|
|
|
|
2011-12-04 03:46:31 -07:00
|
|
|
using std::string;
|
2012-03-06 02:09:37 -07:00
|
|
|
using Eval::evaluate;
|
2011-12-04 03:46:31 -07:00
|
|
|
using namespace Search;
|
|
|
|
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
namespace {
|
|
|
|
|
2016-01-16 14:34:29 -07:00
|
|
|
// Different node types, used as a template parameter
|
2016-01-18 15:20:16 -07:00
|
|
|
enum NodeType { NonPV, PV };
|
2010-11-08 01:44:28 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2017-03-14 22:00:03 -06:00
|
|
|
// Sizes and phases of the skip-blocks, used for distributing search depths across the threads
|
|
|
|
const int skipSize[] = { 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 };
|
|
|
|
const int skipPhase[] = { 0, 1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 };
|
|
|
|
|
2015-01-31 02:43:47 -07:00
|
|
|
// Razoring and futility margin based on depth
|
2017-04-25 18:19:23 -06:00
|
|
|
// razor_margin[0] is unused as long as depth >= ONE_PLY in search
|
|
|
|
const int razor_margin[] = { 0, 570, 603, 554 };
|
2016-08-19 04:17:38 -06:00
|
|
|
Value futility_margin(Depth d) { return Value(150 * d / ONE_PLY); }
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-31 02:43:47 -07:00
|
|
|
// Futility and reductions lookup tables, initialized at startup
|
2016-08-19 04:17:38 -06:00
|
|
|
int FutilityMoveCounts[2][16]; // [improving][depth]
|
|
|
|
int Reductions[2][2][64][64]; // [pv][improving][depth][moveNumber]
|
2010-02-25 09:27:27 -07:00
|
|
|
|
Retire FORCE_INLINE
No speed regression on my machine (i7-3770k, gcc 4.9.1, linux 3.16):
stat test master diff
mean 2,482,415 2,474,987 7,906
stdev 4,603 5,644 2,497
speedup 0.32%
P(speedup>0) 100.0%
Fishtest 9+0.03:
ELO: 0.26 +-1.8 (95%) LOS: 61.2%
Total: 60000 W: 12437 L: 12392 D: 35171
No functional change.
Resolves #334
2015-04-15 14:21:45 -06:00
|
|
|
template <bool PvNode> Depth reduction(bool i, Depth d, int mn) {
|
2016-08-19 04:17:38 -06:00
|
|
|
return Reductions[PvNode][i][std::min(d / ONE_PLY, 63)][std::min(mn, 63)] * ONE_PLY;
|
2011-04-24 01:31:47 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-01-25 07:32:10 -07:00
|
|
|
// History and stats update bonus, based on depth
|
2017-04-23 08:57:48 -06:00
|
|
|
int stat_bonus(Depth depth) {
|
2017-06-11 15:31:15 -06:00
|
|
|
int d = depth / ONE_PLY;
|
2017-04-23 08:57:48 -06:00
|
|
|
return d > 17 ? 0 : d * d + 2 * d - 2;
|
2017-01-25 07:32:10 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-01-16 14:34:29 -07:00
|
|
|
// Skill structure is used to implement strength limit
|
2015-01-31 02:43:47 -07:00
|
|
|
struct Skill {
|
2017-10-10 23:49:58 -06:00
|
|
|
explicit Skill(int l) : level(l) {}
|
2015-01-31 02:43:47 -07:00
|
|
|
bool enabled() const { return level < 20; }
|
|
|
|
bool time_to_pick(Depth depth) const { return depth / ONE_PLY == 1 + level; }
|
|
|
|
Move pick_best(size_t multiPV);
|
2010-02-07 01:53:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-31 02:43:47 -07:00
|
|
|
int level;
|
|
|
|
Move best = MOVE_NONE;
|
|
|
|
};
|
2010-02-07 01:53:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-21 02:41:23 -06:00
|
|
|
Value DrawValue[COLOR_NB];
|
2009-07-01 18:54:17 -06:00
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
template <NodeType NT>
|
2016-12-11 12:05:25 -07:00
|
|
|
Value search(Position& pos, Stack* ss, Value alpha, Value beta, Depth depth, bool cutNode, bool skipEarlyPruning);
|
2010-05-08 02:54:51 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-01 07:49:54 -06:00
|
|
|
template <NodeType NT, bool InCheck>
|
2016-12-20 03:17:38 -07:00
|
|
|
Value qsearch(Position& pos, Stack* ss, Value alpha, Value beta, Depth depth = DEPTH_ZERO);
|
2010-10-16 03:01:45 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2010-07-15 03:00:20 -06:00
|
|
|
Value value_to_tt(Value v, int ply);
|
|
|
|
Value value_from_tt(Value v, int ply);
|
2014-11-21 01:10:52 -07:00
|
|
|
void update_pv(Move* pv, Move move, Move* childPv);
|
2017-06-30 09:20:00 -06:00
|
|
|
void update_continuation_histories(Stack* ss, Piece pc, Square to, int bonus);
|
2017-04-23 08:57:48 -06:00
|
|
|
void update_stats(const Position& pos, Stack* ss, Move move, Move* quiets, int quietsCnt, int bonus);
|
2017-11-03 05:37:11 -06:00
|
|
|
void update_capture_stats(const Position& pos, Move move, Move* captures, int captureCnt, int bonus);
|
2017-10-20 11:17:49 -06:00
|
|
|
bool pv_is_draw(Position& pos);
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2017-08-15 02:05:22 -06:00
|
|
|
// perft() is our utility to verify move generation. All the leaf nodes up
|
|
|
|
// to the given depth are generated and counted, and the sum is returned.
|
|
|
|
template<bool Root>
|
|
|
|
uint64_t perft(Position& pos, Depth depth) {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
StateInfo st;
|
|
|
|
uint64_t cnt, nodes = 0;
|
|
|
|
const bool leaf = (depth == 2 * ONE_PLY);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for (const auto& m : MoveList<LEGAL>(pos))
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (Root && depth <= ONE_PLY)
|
|
|
|
cnt = 1, nodes++;
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
pos.do_move(m, st);
|
|
|
|
cnt = leaf ? MoveList<LEGAL>(pos).size() : perft<false>(pos, depth - ONE_PLY);
|
|
|
|
nodes += cnt;
|
|
|
|
pos.undo_move(m);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (Root)
|
|
|
|
sync_cout << UCI::move(m, pos.is_chess960()) << ": " << cnt << sync_endl;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return nodes;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2011-01-16 15:40:06 -07:00
|
|
|
} // namespace
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-12-14 04:12:28 -07:00
|
|
|
/// Search::init() is called during startup to initialize various lookup tables
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-11-26 04:07:35 -07:00
|
|
|
void Search::init() {
|
2010-06-01 14:28:45 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-02-28 06:28:22 -07:00
|
|
|
for (int imp = 0; imp <= 1; ++imp)
|
|
|
|
for (int d = 1; d < 64; ++d)
|
|
|
|
for (int mc = 1; mc < 64; ++mc)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2017-03-18 16:41:55 -06:00
|
|
|
double r = log(d) * log(mc) / 1.95;
|
2016-02-28 06:28:22 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-19 04:17:38 -06:00
|
|
|
Reductions[NonPV][imp][d][mc] = int(std::round(r));
|
|
|
|
Reductions[PV][imp][d][mc] = std::max(Reductions[NonPV][imp][d][mc] - 1, 0);
|
2016-03-13 01:35:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2016-02-28 06:28:22 -07:00
|
|
|
// Increase reduction for non-PV nodes when eval is not improving
|
2016-08-19 04:17:38 -06:00
|
|
|
if (!imp && Reductions[NonPV][imp][d][mc] >= 2)
|
|
|
|
Reductions[NonPV][imp][d][mc]++;
|
2016-02-28 06:28:22 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
2010-06-01 14:28:45 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2014-11-08 17:45:27 -07:00
|
|
|
for (int d = 0; d < 16; ++d)
|
Increase pruning if evaluation is not improving
Add an additional set of margins to movecount pruning
to be used when static evaluation is getting worse
than previous move.
Here are the margins table with changing
depth (fm0 not improving, fm1 improving):
d: 0, fm0: 3, fm1: 3
d: 1, fm0: 4, fm1: 4
d: 2, fm0: 6, fm1: 6
d: 3, fm0: 7, fm1: 10
d: 4, fm0: 11, fm1: 15
d: 5, fm0: 15, fm1: 21
d: 6, fm0: 21, fm1: 29
d: 7, fm0: 27, fm1: 37
d: 8, fm0: 35, fm1: 47
d: 9, fm0: 42, fm1: 57
d: 10, fm0: 51, fm1: 68
d: 11, fm0: 60, fm1: 81
d: 12, fm0: 70, fm1: 94
d: 13, fm0: 81, fm1: 108
d: 14, fm0: 92, fm1: 123
d: 15, fm0: 104, fm1: 139
Good at both short TC
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 11502 W: 2503 L: 2361 D: 6638
And long TC
LLR: 2.98 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 7189 W: 1421 L: 1277 D: 4491
bench: 4364793
2013-07-28 17:16:25 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-04-17 10:21:16 -06:00
|
|
|
FutilityMoveCounts[0][d] = int(2.4 + 0.74 * pow(d, 1.78));
|
|
|
|
FutilityMoveCounts[1][d] = int(5.0 + 1.00 * pow(d, 2.00));
|
Increase pruning if evaluation is not improving
Add an additional set of margins to movecount pruning
to be used when static evaluation is getting worse
than previous move.
Here are the margins table with changing
depth (fm0 not improving, fm1 improving):
d: 0, fm0: 3, fm1: 3
d: 1, fm0: 4, fm1: 4
d: 2, fm0: 6, fm1: 6
d: 3, fm0: 7, fm1: 10
d: 4, fm0: 11, fm1: 15
d: 5, fm0: 15, fm1: 21
d: 6, fm0: 21, fm1: 29
d: 7, fm0: 27, fm1: 37
d: 8, fm0: 35, fm1: 47
d: 9, fm0: 42, fm1: 57
d: 10, fm0: 51, fm1: 68
d: 11, fm0: 60, fm1: 81
d: 12, fm0: 70, fm1: 94
d: 13, fm0: 81, fm1: 108
d: 14, fm0: 92, fm1: 123
d: 15, fm0: 104, fm1: 139
Good at both short TC
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 11502 W: 2503 L: 2361 D: 6638
And long TC
LLR: 2.98 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 7189 W: 1421 L: 1277 D: 4491
bench: 4364793
2013-07-28 17:16:25 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
2010-06-01 14:28:45 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-08-06 05:43:02 -06:00
|
|
|
/// Search::clear() resets search state to its initial value
|
2015-05-06 05:24:00 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-25 01:30:07 -06:00
|
|
|
void Search::clear() {
|
2015-05-06 05:24:00 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2017-08-06 05:43:02 -06:00
|
|
|
Threads.main()->wait_for_search_finished();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time.availableNodes = 0;
|
2015-05-09 03:09:06 -06:00
|
|
|
TT.clear();
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for (Thread* th : Threads)
|
2017-08-31 01:34:32 -06:00
|
|
|
th->clear();
|
2016-01-03 07:00:56 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-23 23:15:46 -06:00
|
|
|
Threads.main()->callsCnt = 0;
|
2016-01-16 01:03:56 -07:00
|
|
|
Threads.main()->previousScore = VALUE_INFINITE;
|
Replace easyMove with simple scheme
Reduces time for a stable bestMove, giving some of the won time for the next move.
the version before the pvDraw passed both STC and LTC
passed STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59e98d5a0ebc590ccbb896ec
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 78561 W: 13945 L: 13921 D: 50695
elo = 0.106 +- 1.445 LOS: 55.716%
passed LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59eb9df90ebc590ccbb897ae
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 29056 W: 3640 L: 3530 D: 21886
elo = 1.315 +- 1.982 LOS: 90.314%
This version, rebased on pvDrawPR with the obvious change, was verified again on STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59ee104e0ebc590ccbb89899
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 19890 W: 3648 L: 3525 D: 12717
elo = 2.149 +- 2.895 LOS: 92.692%
and LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59f9673a0ebc590ccbb89ea0
Total : 17966
Win : 2273 ( 12.652%)
Loss : 2149 ( 11.961%)
Draw : 13544 ( 75.387%)
Score : 50.345%
Sensitivity : 0.014%
2*(W-L)/(W+L) : 5.608%
LLR [-3.0, 1.0] : 2.95
BayesElo range : [ -1.161, 4.876, 10.830] (DrawElo: 341.132)
LogisticElo range : [ -0.501, 2.105, 4.677]
LOS : 94.369 %
LTC again:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17966 W: 2273 L: 2149 D: 13544
LogisticElo range : [ -0.501, 2.105, 4.677]
LOS : 94.369 %
unchanged bench: 5234652
2017-11-03 06:51:53 -06:00
|
|
|
Threads.main()->previousTimeReduction = 1;
|
2015-05-06 05:24:00 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-11-05 00:40:23 -07:00
|
|
|
/// MainThread::search() is called by the main thread when the program receives
|
2016-01-16 14:34:29 -07:00
|
|
|
/// the UCI 'go' command. It searches from the root position and outputs the "bestmove".
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2015-11-05 00:40:23 -07:00
|
|
|
void MainThread::search() {
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2017-08-15 02:05:22 -06:00
|
|
|
if (Limits.perft)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
nodes = perft<true>(rootPos, Limits.perft * ONE_PLY);
|
|
|
|
sync_cout << "\nNodes searched: " << nodes << "\n" << sync_endl;
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
Color us = rootPos.side_to_move();
|
|
|
|
Time.init(Limits, us, rootPos.game_ply());
|
2017-06-06 01:48:57 -06:00
|
|
|
TT.new_search();
|
2011-11-06 05:13:54 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-12-07 16:53:33 -07:00
|
|
|
int contempt = Options["Contempt"] * PawnValueEg / 100; // From centipawns
|
Add support for playing in 'nodes as time' mode
When running more games in parallel, or simply when running a game
with a background process, due to how OS scheduling works, there is no
guarantee that the CPU resources allocated evenly between the two
players. This introduces noise in the result that leads to unreliable
result and in the worst cases can even invalidate the result. For
instance in SF test framework we avoid running from clouds virtual
machines because are a known source of very unstable CPU speed.
To overcome this issue, without requiring changes to the GUI, the idea
is to use searched nodes instead of time, and to convert time to
available nodes upfront, at the beginning of the game.
When nodestime UCI option is set at a given nodes per milliseconds
(npmsec), at the beginning of the game (and only once), the engine
reads the available time to think, sent by the GUI with 'go wtime x'
UCI command. Then it translates time in available nodes (nodes =
npmsec * x), then feeds available nodes instead of time to the time
management logic and starts the search. During the search the engine
checks the searched nodes against the available ones in such a way
that all the time management logic still fully applies, and the game
mimics a real one played on real time. When the search finishes,
before returning best move, the total available nodes are updated,
subtracting the real searched nodes. After the first move, the time
information sent by the GUI is ignored, and the engine fully relies on
the updated total available nodes to feed time management.
To avoid time losses, the speed of the engine (npms) must be set to a
value lower than real speed so that if the real TC is for instance 30
secs, and npms is half of the real speed, the game will last on
average 15 secs, so much less than the TC limit, providing for a
safety 'time buffer'.
There are 2 main limitations with this mode.
1. Engine speed should be the same for both players, and this limits
the approach to mainly parameter tuning patches.
2. Because npms is fixed while, in real engines, the speed increases
toward endgame, this introduces an artifact that is equivalent to an
altered time management. Namely it is like the time management gives
less available time than what should be in standard case.
May be the second limitation could be mitigated in a future with a
smarter 'dynamic npms' approach.
Tests shows that the standard deviation of the results with 'nodestime'
is lower than in standard TC, as is expected because now all the introduced
noise due the random speed variability of the engines during the game is
fully removed.
Original NIT idea by Michael Hoffman that shows how to play in NIT mode
without requiring changes to the GUI. This implementation goes a bit
further, the key difference is that we read TC from GUI only once upfront
instead of re-reading after every move as in Michael's implementation.
No functional change.
2015-03-22 14:15:44 -06:00
|
|
|
DrawValue[ us] = VALUE_DRAW - Value(contempt);
|
|
|
|
DrawValue[~us] = VALUE_DRAW + Value(contempt);
|
2014-03-01 04:10:42 -07:00
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
if (rootMoves.empty())
|
2008-10-30 04:35:44 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-08-13 06:33:25 -06:00
|
|
|
rootMoves.emplace_back(MOVE_NONE);
|
2012-08-29 05:28:59 -06:00
|
|
|
sync_cout << "info depth 0 score "
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
<< UCI::value(rootPos.checkers() ? -VALUE_MATE : VALUE_DRAW)
|
2012-10-24 06:37:52 -06:00
|
|
|
<< sync_endl;
|
2012-01-14 03:45:54 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
2014-11-10 06:46:05 -07:00
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
2015-01-18 00:00:50 -07:00
|
|
|
for (Thread* th : Threads)
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
if (th != this)
|
2015-11-20 23:48:50 -07:00
|
|
|
th->start_searching();
|
2012-01-14 03:45:54 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-11-05 00:40:23 -07:00
|
|
|
Thread::search(); // Let's start searching!
|
2014-11-10 06:46:05 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
2013-05-03 02:25:25 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2013-12-02 11:04:09 -07:00
|
|
|
// When we reach the maximum depth, we can arrive here without a raise of
|
2017-07-13 17:07:19 -06:00
|
|
|
// Threads.stop. However, if we are pondering or in an infinite search,
|
2013-12-02 11:04:09 -07:00
|
|
|
// the UCI protocol states that we shouldn't print the best move before the
|
|
|
|
// GUI sends a "stop" or "ponderhit" command. We therefore simply wait here
|
2017-07-13 17:07:19 -06:00
|
|
|
// until the GUI sends one of those commands (which also raises Threads.stop).
|
2017-08-04 11:48:07 -06:00
|
|
|
Threads.stopOnPonderhit = true;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
while (!Threads.stop && (Threads.ponder || Limits.infinite))
|
|
|
|
{} // Busy wait for a stop or a ponder reset
|
2010-12-30 08:18:22 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2017-08-04 11:48:07 -06:00
|
|
|
// Stop the threads if not already stopped (also raise the stop if
|
|
|
|
// "ponderhit" just reset Threads.ponder).
|
2017-07-13 17:07:19 -06:00
|
|
|
Threads.stop = true;
|
2015-11-09 01:50:02 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Wait until all threads have finished
|
|
|
|
for (Thread* th : Threads)
|
|
|
|
if (th != this)
|
2015-11-20 23:48:50 -07:00
|
|
|
th->wait_for_search_finished();
|
2015-11-09 01:50:02 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2017-09-29 08:39:12 -06:00
|
|
|
// When playing in 'nodes as time' mode, subtract the searched nodes from
|
|
|
|
// the available ones before exiting.
|
|
|
|
if (Limits.npmsec)
|
|
|
|
Time.availableNodes += Limits.inc[us] - Threads.nodes_searched();
|
|
|
|
|
2015-12-23 02:07:54 -07:00
|
|
|
// Check if there are threads with a better score than main thread
|
2015-11-02 02:58:18 -07:00
|
|
|
Thread* bestThread = this;
|
Replace easyMove with simple scheme
Reduces time for a stable bestMove, giving some of the won time for the next move.
the version before the pvDraw passed both STC and LTC
passed STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59e98d5a0ebc590ccbb896ec
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 78561 W: 13945 L: 13921 D: 50695
elo = 0.106 +- 1.445 LOS: 55.716%
passed LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59eb9df90ebc590ccbb897ae
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 29056 W: 3640 L: 3530 D: 21886
elo = 1.315 +- 1.982 LOS: 90.314%
This version, rebased on pvDrawPR with the obvious change, was verified again on STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59ee104e0ebc590ccbb89899
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 19890 W: 3648 L: 3525 D: 12717
elo = 2.149 +- 2.895 LOS: 92.692%
and LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59f9673a0ebc590ccbb89ea0
Total : 17966
Win : 2273 ( 12.652%)
Loss : 2149 ( 11.961%)
Draw : 13544 ( 75.387%)
Score : 50.345%
Sensitivity : 0.014%
2*(W-L)/(W+L) : 5.608%
LLR [-3.0, 1.0] : 2.95
BayesElo range : [ -1.161, 4.876, 10.830] (DrawElo: 341.132)
LogisticElo range : [ -0.501, 2.105, 4.677]
LOS : 94.369 %
LTC again:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17966 W: 2273 L: 2149 D: 13544
LogisticElo range : [ -0.501, 2.105, 4.677]
LOS : 94.369 %
unchanged bench: 5234652
2017-11-03 06:51:53 -06:00
|
|
|
if ( Options["MultiPV"] == 1
|
2016-04-30 02:56:00 -06:00
|
|
|
&& !Limits.depth
|
2016-04-08 09:20:47 -06:00
|
|
|
&& !Skill(Options["Skill Level"]).enabled()
|
|
|
|
&& rootMoves[0].pv[0] != MOVE_NONE)
|
2015-12-23 02:07:54 -07:00
|
|
|
{
|
2015-12-07 14:51:43 -07:00
|
|
|
for (Thread* th : Threads)
|
2016-12-31 08:09:22 -07:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
Depth depthDiff = th->completedDepth - bestThread->completedDepth;
|
|
|
|
Value scoreDiff = th->rootMoves[0].score - bestThread->rootMoves[0].score;
|
|
|
|
|
2017-08-18 11:38:18 -06:00
|
|
|
// Select the thread with the best score, always if it is a mate
|
|
|
|
if ( scoreDiff > 0
|
|
|
|
&& (depthDiff >= 0 || th->rootMoves[0].score >= VALUE_MATE_IN_MAX_PLY))
|
2015-12-23 02:07:54 -07:00
|
|
|
bestThread = th;
|
2016-12-31 08:09:22 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
2015-12-23 02:07:54 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
2015-11-02 02:58:18 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2016-01-16 01:03:56 -07:00
|
|
|
previousScore = bestThread->rootMoves[0].score;
|
2016-01-03 07:00:56 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-12-23 02:07:54 -07:00
|
|
|
// Send new PV when needed
|
2015-11-02 02:58:18 -07:00
|
|
|
if (bestThread != this)
|
|
|
|
sync_cout << UCI::pv(bestThread->rootPos, bestThread->completedDepth, -VALUE_INFINITE, VALUE_INFINITE) << sync_endl;
|
2014-11-23 17:53:00 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-11-02 02:58:18 -07:00
|
|
|
sync_cout << "bestmove " << UCI::move(bestThread->rootMoves[0].pv[0], rootPos.is_chess960());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (bestThread->rootMoves[0].pv.size() > 1 || bestThread->rootMoves[0].extract_ponder_from_tt(rootPos))
|
|
|
|
std::cout << " ponder " << UCI::move(bestThread->rootMoves[0].pv[1], rootPos.is_chess960());
|
2014-11-23 17:53:00 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std::cout << sync_endl;
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-14 22:00:03 -06:00
|
|
|
/// Thread::search() is the main iterative deepening loop. It calls search()
|
|
|
|
/// repeatedly with increasing depth until the allocated thinking time has been
|
|
|
|
/// consumed, the user stops the search, or the maximum search depth is reached.
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2015-11-05 00:40:23 -07:00
|
|
|
void Thread::search() {
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
Let ss->ply denote the number of plies from the root to the current node
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.
2017-09-16 13:49:29 -06:00
|
|
|
Stack stack[MAX_PLY+7], *ss = stack+4; // To reference from (ss-4) to (ss+2)
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
Value bestValue, alpha, beta, delta;
|
Replace easyMove with simple scheme
Reduces time for a stable bestMove, giving some of the won time for the next move.
the version before the pvDraw passed both STC and LTC
passed STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59e98d5a0ebc590ccbb896ec
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 78561 W: 13945 L: 13921 D: 50695
elo = 0.106 +- 1.445 LOS: 55.716%
passed LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59eb9df90ebc590ccbb897ae
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 29056 W: 3640 L: 3530 D: 21886
elo = 1.315 +- 1.982 LOS: 90.314%
This version, rebased on pvDrawPR with the obvious change, was verified again on STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59ee104e0ebc590ccbb89899
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 19890 W: 3648 L: 3525 D: 12717
elo = 2.149 +- 2.895 LOS: 92.692%
and LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59f9673a0ebc590ccbb89ea0
Total : 17966
Win : 2273 ( 12.652%)
Loss : 2149 ( 11.961%)
Draw : 13544 ( 75.387%)
Score : 50.345%
Sensitivity : 0.014%
2*(W-L)/(W+L) : 5.608%
LLR [-3.0, 1.0] : 2.95
BayesElo range : [ -1.161, 4.876, 10.830] (DrawElo: 341.132)
LogisticElo range : [ -0.501, 2.105, 4.677]
LOS : 94.369 %
LTC again:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17966 W: 2273 L: 2149 D: 13544
LogisticElo range : [ -0.501, 2.105, 4.677]
LOS : 94.369 %
unchanged bench: 5234652
2017-11-03 06:51:53 -06:00
|
|
|
Move lastBestMove = MOVE_NONE;
|
|
|
|
Depth lastBestMoveDepth = DEPTH_ZERO;
|
2015-12-23 02:07:54 -07:00
|
|
|
MainThread* mainThread = (this == Threads.main() ? Threads.main() : nullptr);
|
Replace easyMove with simple scheme
Reduces time for a stable bestMove, giving some of the won time for the next move.
the version before the pvDraw passed both STC and LTC
passed STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59e98d5a0ebc590ccbb896ec
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 78561 W: 13945 L: 13921 D: 50695
elo = 0.106 +- 1.445 LOS: 55.716%
passed LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59eb9df90ebc590ccbb897ae
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 29056 W: 3640 L: 3530 D: 21886
elo = 1.315 +- 1.982 LOS: 90.314%
This version, rebased on pvDrawPR with the obvious change, was verified again on STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59ee104e0ebc590ccbb89899
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 19890 W: 3648 L: 3525 D: 12717
elo = 2.149 +- 2.895 LOS: 92.692%
and LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59f9673a0ebc590ccbb89ea0
Total : 17966
Win : 2273 ( 12.652%)
Loss : 2149 ( 11.961%)
Draw : 13544 ( 75.387%)
Score : 50.345%
Sensitivity : 0.014%
2*(W-L)/(W+L) : 5.608%
LLR [-3.0, 1.0] : 2.95
BayesElo range : [ -1.161, 4.876, 10.830] (DrawElo: 341.132)
LogisticElo range : [ -0.501, 2.105, 4.677]
LOS : 94.369 %
LTC again:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17966 W: 2273 L: 2149 D: 13544
LogisticElo range : [ -0.501, 2.105, 4.677]
LOS : 94.369 %
unchanged bench: 5234652
2017-11-03 06:51:53 -06:00
|
|
|
double timeReduction = 1.0;
|
2008-10-30 04:35:44 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-11-06 07:20:23 -07:00
|
|
|
std::memset(ss-4, 0, 7 * sizeof(Stack));
|
2017-06-04 03:03:23 -06:00
|
|
|
for (int i = 4; i > 0; i--)
|
2017-06-30 09:20:00 -06:00
|
|
|
(ss-i)->contHistory = &this->contHistory[NO_PIECE][0]; // Use as sentinel
|
2011-01-17 02:44:00 -07:00
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
bestValue = delta = alpha = -VALUE_INFINITE;
|
|
|
|
beta = VALUE_INFINITE;
|
2015-03-12 13:49:30 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2015-12-23 02:07:54 -07:00
|
|
|
if (mainThread)
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
Replace easyMove with simple scheme
Reduces time for a stable bestMove, giving some of the won time for the next move.
the version before the pvDraw passed both STC and LTC
passed STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59e98d5a0ebc590ccbb896ec
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 78561 W: 13945 L: 13921 D: 50695
elo = 0.106 +- 1.445 LOS: 55.716%
passed LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59eb9df90ebc590ccbb897ae
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 29056 W: 3640 L: 3530 D: 21886
elo = 1.315 +- 1.982 LOS: 90.314%
This version, rebased on pvDrawPR with the obvious change, was verified again on STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59ee104e0ebc590ccbb89899
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 19890 W: 3648 L: 3525 D: 12717
elo = 2.149 +- 2.895 LOS: 92.692%
and LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59f9673a0ebc590ccbb89ea0
Total : 17966
Win : 2273 ( 12.652%)
Loss : 2149 ( 11.961%)
Draw : 13544 ( 75.387%)
Score : 50.345%
Sensitivity : 0.014%
2*(W-L)/(W+L) : 5.608%
LLR [-3.0, 1.0] : 2.95
BayesElo range : [ -1.161, 4.876, 10.830] (DrawElo: 341.132)
LogisticElo range : [ -0.501, 2.105, 4.677]
LOS : 94.369 %
LTC again:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17966 W: 2273 L: 2149 D: 13544
LogisticElo range : [ -0.501, 2.105, 4.677]
LOS : 94.369 %
unchanged bench: 5234652
2017-11-03 06:51:53 -06:00
|
|
|
mainThread->failedLow = false;
|
2015-12-23 02:07:54 -07:00
|
|
|
mainThread->bestMoveChanges = 0;
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
2013-07-03 10:58:49 -06:00
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
size_t multiPV = Options["MultiPV"];
|
|
|
|
Skill skill(Options["Skill Level"]);
|
2013-07-03 10:58:49 -06:00
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
// When playing with strength handicap enable MultiPV search that we will
|
|
|
|
// use behind the scenes to retrieve a set of possible moves.
|
|
|
|
if (skill.enabled())
|
|
|
|
multiPV = std::max(multiPV, (size_t)4);
|
2015-03-29 01:24:17 -06:00
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
multiPV = std::min(multiPV, rootMoves.size());
|
2012-10-24 04:05:20 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-19 04:17:38 -06:00
|
|
|
// Iterative deepening loop until requested to stop or the target depth is reached
|
2017-07-02 04:10:50 -06:00
|
|
|
while ( (rootDepth += ONE_PLY) < DEPTH_MAX
|
2017-07-13 17:07:19 -06:00
|
|
|
&& !Threads.stop
|
2017-07-02 04:10:50 -06:00
|
|
|
&& !(Limits.depth && mainThread && rootDepth / ONE_PLY > Limits.depth))
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-03-14 22:00:03 -06:00
|
|
|
// Distribute search depths across the threads
|
|
|
|
if (idx)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
int i = (idx - 1) % 20;
|
|
|
|
if (((rootDepth / ONE_PLY + rootPos.game_ply() + skipPhase[i]) / skipSize[i]) % 2)
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2015-01-25 03:07:43 -07:00
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
// Age out PV variability metric
|
2015-12-23 02:07:54 -07:00
|
|
|
if (mainThread)
|
|
|
|
mainThread->bestMoveChanges *= 0.505, mainThread->failedLow = false;
|
2012-10-24 04:05:20 -06:00
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
// Save the last iteration's scores before first PV line is searched and
|
|
|
|
// all the move scores except the (new) PV are set to -VALUE_INFINITE.
|
|
|
|
for (RootMove& rm : rootMoves)
|
|
|
|
rm.previousScore = rm.score;
|
2013-08-24 10:29:44 -06:00
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
// MultiPV loop. We perform a full root search for each PV line
|
2017-07-13 17:07:19 -06:00
|
|
|
for (PVIdx = 0; PVIdx < multiPV && !Threads.stop; ++PVIdx)
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-07-13 17:30:03 -06:00
|
|
|
// Reset UCI info selDepth for each depth and each PV line
|
|
|
|
selDepth = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
// Reset aspiration window starting size
|
2015-10-23 23:27:24 -06:00
|
|
|
if (rootDepth >= 5 * ONE_PLY)
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2015-10-20 20:46:06 -06:00
|
|
|
delta = Value(18);
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
alpha = std::max(rootMoves[PVIdx].previousScore - delta,-VALUE_INFINITE);
|
|
|
|
beta = std::min(rootMoves[PVIdx].previousScore + delta, VALUE_INFINITE);
|
|
|
|
}
|
2009-04-11 07:46:35 -06:00
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
// Start with a small aspiration window and, in the case of a fail
|
|
|
|
// high/low, re-search with a bigger window until we're not failing
|
|
|
|
// high/low anymore.
|
|
|
|
while (true)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2016-12-11 12:05:25 -07:00
|
|
|
bestValue = ::search<PV>(rootPos, ss, alpha, beta, rootDepth, false, false);
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Bring the best move to the front. It is critical that sorting
|
|
|
|
// is done with a stable algorithm because all the values but the
|
|
|
|
// first and eventually the new best one are set to -VALUE_INFINITE
|
|
|
|
// and we want to keep the same order for all the moves except the
|
|
|
|
// new PV that goes to the front. Note that in case of MultiPV
|
|
|
|
// search the already searched PV lines are preserved.
|
|
|
|
std::stable_sort(rootMoves.begin() + PVIdx, rootMoves.end());
|
|
|
|
|
2017-02-18 23:48:28 -07:00
|
|
|
// If search has been stopped, we break immediately. Sorting and
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
// writing PV back to TT is safe because RootMoves is still
|
2016-01-16 14:34:29 -07:00
|
|
|
// valid, although it refers to the previous iteration.
|
2017-07-13 17:07:19 -06:00
|
|
|
if (Threads.stop)
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
break;
|
2011-02-28 12:17:57 -07:00
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
// When failing high/low give some update (without cluttering
|
|
|
|
// the UI) before a re-search.
|
2015-12-23 02:07:54 -07:00
|
|
|
if ( mainThread
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
&& multiPV == 1
|
|
|
|
&& (bestValue <= alpha || bestValue >= beta)
|
|
|
|
&& Time.elapsed() > 3000)
|
2015-10-23 23:27:24 -06:00
|
|
|
sync_cout << UCI::pv(rootPos, rootDepth, alpha, beta) << sync_endl;
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// In case of failing low/high increase aspiration window and
|
|
|
|
// re-search, otherwise exit the loop.
|
|
|
|
if (bestValue <= alpha)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
beta = (alpha + beta) / 2;
|
|
|
|
alpha = std::max(bestValue - delta, -VALUE_INFINITE);
|
2012-10-24 04:05:20 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2015-12-23 02:07:54 -07:00
|
|
|
if (mainThread)
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2015-12-23 02:07:54 -07:00
|
|
|
mainThread->failedLow = true;
|
2017-07-13 17:07:19 -06:00
|
|
|
Threads.stopOnPonderhit = false;
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else if (bestValue >= beta)
|
|
|
|
beta = std::min(bestValue + delta, VALUE_INFINITE);
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
break;
|
2013-02-03 03:14:21 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-20 20:46:06 -06:00
|
|
|
delta += delta / 4 + 5;
|
2014-11-10 06:46:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
assert(alpha >= -VALUE_INFINITE && beta <= VALUE_INFINITE);
|
|
|
|
}
|
2009-04-11 07:46:35 -06:00
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
// Sort the PV lines searched so far and update the GUI
|
|
|
|
std::stable_sort(rootMoves.begin(), rootMoves.begin() + PVIdx + 1);
|
2011-04-02 02:05:53 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2017-08-18 11:38:18 -06:00
|
|
|
if ( mainThread
|
|
|
|
&& (Threads.stop || PVIdx + 1 == multiPV || Time.elapsed() > 3000))
|
2015-10-23 23:27:24 -06:00
|
|
|
sync_cout << UCI::pv(rootPos, rootDepth, alpha, beta) << sync_endl;
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
2015-01-25 03:07:43 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2017-07-13 17:07:19 -06:00
|
|
|
if (!Threads.stop)
|
2015-11-02 02:58:18 -07:00
|
|
|
completedDepth = rootDepth;
|
|
|
|
|
Replace easyMove with simple scheme
Reduces time for a stable bestMove, giving some of the won time for the next move.
the version before the pvDraw passed both STC and LTC
passed STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59e98d5a0ebc590ccbb896ec
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 78561 W: 13945 L: 13921 D: 50695
elo = 0.106 +- 1.445 LOS: 55.716%
passed LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59eb9df90ebc590ccbb897ae
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 29056 W: 3640 L: 3530 D: 21886
elo = 1.315 +- 1.982 LOS: 90.314%
This version, rebased on pvDrawPR with the obvious change, was verified again on STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59ee104e0ebc590ccbb89899
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 19890 W: 3648 L: 3525 D: 12717
elo = 2.149 +- 2.895 LOS: 92.692%
and LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59f9673a0ebc590ccbb89ea0
Total : 17966
Win : 2273 ( 12.652%)
Loss : 2149 ( 11.961%)
Draw : 13544 ( 75.387%)
Score : 50.345%
Sensitivity : 0.014%
2*(W-L)/(W+L) : 5.608%
LLR [-3.0, 1.0] : 2.95
BayesElo range : [ -1.161, 4.876, 10.830] (DrawElo: 341.132)
LogisticElo range : [ -0.501, 2.105, 4.677]
LOS : 94.369 %
LTC again:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17966 W: 2273 L: 2149 D: 13544
LogisticElo range : [ -0.501, 2.105, 4.677]
LOS : 94.369 %
unchanged bench: 5234652
2017-11-03 06:51:53 -06:00
|
|
|
if (rootMoves[0].pv[0] != lastBestMove) {
|
|
|
|
lastBestMove = rootMoves[0].pv[0];
|
|
|
|
lastBestMoveDepth = rootDepth;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-08-18 11:38:18 -06:00
|
|
|
// Have we found a "mate in x"?
|
|
|
|
if ( Limits.mate
|
|
|
|
&& bestValue >= VALUE_MATE_IN_MAX_PLY
|
|
|
|
&& VALUE_MATE - bestValue <= 2 * Limits.mate)
|
|
|
|
Threads.stop = true;
|
|
|
|
|
2015-12-23 02:07:54 -07:00
|
|
|
if (!mainThread)
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
continue;
|
2015-03-12 13:49:30 -06:00
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
// If skill level is enabled and time is up, pick a sub-optimal best move
|
2015-10-23 23:27:24 -06:00
|
|
|
if (skill.enabled() && skill.time_to_pick(rootDepth))
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
skill.pick_best(multiPV);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Do we have time for the next iteration? Can we stop searching now?
|
|
|
|
if (Limits.use_time_management())
|
|
|
|
{
|
2017-07-13 17:07:19 -06:00
|
|
|
if (!Threads.stop && !Threads.stopOnPonderhit)
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2016-01-16 14:34:29 -07:00
|
|
|
// Stop the search if only one legal move is available, or if all
|
Replace easyMove with simple scheme
Reduces time for a stable bestMove, giving some of the won time for the next move.
the version before the pvDraw passed both STC and LTC
passed STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59e98d5a0ebc590ccbb896ec
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 78561 W: 13945 L: 13921 D: 50695
elo = 0.106 +- 1.445 LOS: 55.716%
passed LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59eb9df90ebc590ccbb897ae
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 29056 W: 3640 L: 3530 D: 21886
elo = 1.315 +- 1.982 LOS: 90.314%
This version, rebased on pvDrawPR with the obvious change, was verified again on STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59ee104e0ebc590ccbb89899
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 19890 W: 3648 L: 3525 D: 12717
elo = 2.149 +- 2.895 LOS: 92.692%
and LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59f9673a0ebc590ccbb89ea0
Total : 17966
Win : 2273 ( 12.652%)
Loss : 2149 ( 11.961%)
Draw : 13544 ( 75.387%)
Score : 50.345%
Sensitivity : 0.014%
2*(W-L)/(W+L) : 5.608%
LLR [-3.0, 1.0] : 2.95
BayesElo range : [ -1.161, 4.876, 10.830] (DrawElo: 341.132)
LogisticElo range : [ -0.501, 2.105, 4.677]
LOS : 94.369 %
LTC again:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17966 W: 2273 L: 2149 D: 13544
LogisticElo range : [ -0.501, 2.105, 4.677]
LOS : 94.369 %
unchanged bench: 5234652
2017-11-03 06:51:53 -06:00
|
|
|
// of the available time has been used
|
2016-05-16 14:30:57 -06:00
|
|
|
const int F[] = { mainThread->failedLow,
|
|
|
|
bestValue - mainThread->previousScore };
|
|
|
|
int improvingFactor = std::max(229, std::min(715, 357 + 119 * F[0] - 6 * F[1]));
|
2017-10-20 11:17:49 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Color us = rootPos.side_to_move();
|
|
|
|
bool thinkHard = DrawValue[us] == bestValue
|
|
|
|
&& Limits.time[us] - Time.elapsed() > Limits.time[~us]
|
|
|
|
&& ::pv_is_draw(rootPos);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
double unstablePvFactor = 1 + mainThread->bestMoveChanges + thinkHard;
|
2016-01-16 01:03:56 -07:00
|
|
|
|
Replace easyMove with simple scheme
Reduces time for a stable bestMove, giving some of the won time for the next move.
the version before the pvDraw passed both STC and LTC
passed STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59e98d5a0ebc590ccbb896ec
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 78561 W: 13945 L: 13921 D: 50695
elo = 0.106 +- 1.445 LOS: 55.716%
passed LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59eb9df90ebc590ccbb897ae
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 29056 W: 3640 L: 3530 D: 21886
elo = 1.315 +- 1.982 LOS: 90.314%
This version, rebased on pvDrawPR with the obvious change, was verified again on STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59ee104e0ebc590ccbb89899
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 19890 W: 3648 L: 3525 D: 12717
elo = 2.149 +- 2.895 LOS: 92.692%
and LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59f9673a0ebc590ccbb89ea0
Total : 17966
Win : 2273 ( 12.652%)
Loss : 2149 ( 11.961%)
Draw : 13544 ( 75.387%)
Score : 50.345%
Sensitivity : 0.014%
2*(W-L)/(W+L) : 5.608%
LLR [-3.0, 1.0] : 2.95
BayesElo range : [ -1.161, 4.876, 10.830] (DrawElo: 341.132)
LogisticElo range : [ -0.501, 2.105, 4.677]
LOS : 94.369 %
LTC again:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17966 W: 2273 L: 2149 D: 13544
LogisticElo range : [ -0.501, 2.105, 4.677]
LOS : 94.369 %
unchanged bench: 5234652
2017-11-03 06:51:53 -06:00
|
|
|
// if the bestMove is stable over several iterations, reduce time for this move,
|
|
|
|
// the longer the move has been stable, the more.
|
|
|
|
// Use part of the gained time from a previous stable move for the current move.
|
|
|
|
timeReduction = 1;
|
|
|
|
for (int i : {3, 4, 5})
|
|
|
|
if (lastBestMoveDepth * i < completedDepth && !thinkHard)
|
|
|
|
timeReduction *= 1.3;
|
|
|
|
unstablePvFactor *= std::pow(mainThread->previousTimeReduction, 0.51) / timeReduction;
|
2016-01-16 01:03:56 -07:00
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
if ( rootMoves.size() == 1
|
Replace easyMove with simple scheme
Reduces time for a stable bestMove, giving some of the won time for the next move.
the version before the pvDraw passed both STC and LTC
passed STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59e98d5a0ebc590ccbb896ec
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 78561 W: 13945 L: 13921 D: 50695
elo = 0.106 +- 1.445 LOS: 55.716%
passed LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59eb9df90ebc590ccbb897ae
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 29056 W: 3640 L: 3530 D: 21886
elo = 1.315 +- 1.982 LOS: 90.314%
This version, rebased on pvDrawPR with the obvious change, was verified again on STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59ee104e0ebc590ccbb89899
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 19890 W: 3648 L: 3525 D: 12717
elo = 2.149 +- 2.895 LOS: 92.692%
and LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59f9673a0ebc590ccbb89ea0
Total : 17966
Win : 2273 ( 12.652%)
Loss : 2149 ( 11.961%)
Draw : 13544 ( 75.387%)
Score : 50.345%
Sensitivity : 0.014%
2*(W-L)/(W+L) : 5.608%
LLR [-3.0, 1.0] : 2.95
BayesElo range : [ -1.161, 4.876, 10.830] (DrawElo: 341.132)
LogisticElo range : [ -0.501, 2.105, 4.677]
LOS : 94.369 %
LTC again:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17966 W: 2273 L: 2149 D: 13544
LogisticElo range : [ -0.501, 2.105, 4.677]
LOS : 94.369 %
unchanged bench: 5234652
2017-11-03 06:51:53 -06:00
|
|
|
|| Time.elapsed() > Time.optimum() * unstablePvFactor * improvingFactor / 628)
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// If we are allowed to ponder do not stop the search now but
|
|
|
|
// keep pondering until the GUI sends "ponderhit" or "stop".
|
2017-08-10 13:32:50 -06:00
|
|
|
if (Threads.ponder)
|
2017-07-13 17:07:19 -06:00
|
|
|
Threads.stopOnPonderhit = true;
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
else
|
2017-07-13 17:07:19 -06:00
|
|
|
Threads.stop = true;
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-12-23 02:07:54 -07:00
|
|
|
if (!mainThread)
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
Replace easyMove with simple scheme
Reduces time for a stable bestMove, giving some of the won time for the next move.
the version before the pvDraw passed both STC and LTC
passed STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59e98d5a0ebc590ccbb896ec
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 78561 W: 13945 L: 13921 D: 50695
elo = 0.106 +- 1.445 LOS: 55.716%
passed LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59eb9df90ebc590ccbb897ae
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 29056 W: 3640 L: 3530 D: 21886
elo = 1.315 +- 1.982 LOS: 90.314%
This version, rebased on pvDrawPR with the obvious change, was verified again on STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59ee104e0ebc590ccbb89899
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 19890 W: 3648 L: 3525 D: 12717
elo = 2.149 +- 2.895 LOS: 92.692%
and LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59f9673a0ebc590ccbb89ea0
Total : 17966
Win : 2273 ( 12.652%)
Loss : 2149 ( 11.961%)
Draw : 13544 ( 75.387%)
Score : 50.345%
Sensitivity : 0.014%
2*(W-L)/(W+L) : 5.608%
LLR [-3.0, 1.0] : 2.95
BayesElo range : [ -1.161, 4.876, 10.830] (DrawElo: 341.132)
LogisticElo range : [ -0.501, 2.105, 4.677]
LOS : 94.369 %
LTC again:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17966 W: 2273 L: 2149 D: 13544
LogisticElo range : [ -0.501, 2.105, 4.677]
LOS : 94.369 %
unchanged bench: 5234652
2017-11-03 06:51:53 -06:00
|
|
|
mainThread->previousTimeReduction = timeReduction;
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// If skill level is enabled, swap best PV line with the sub-optimal one
|
|
|
|
if (skill.enabled())
|
2017-10-10 23:49:58 -06:00
|
|
|
std::swap(rootMoves[0], *std::find(rootMoves.begin(), rootMoves.end(),
|
|
|
|
skill.best ? skill.best : skill.pick_best(multiPV)));
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
namespace {
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-25 05:07:22 -06:00
|
|
|
// search<>() is the main search function for both PV and non-PV nodes
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
template <NodeType NT>
|
2016-12-11 12:05:25 -07:00
|
|
|
Value search(Position& pos, Stack* ss, Value alpha, Value beta, Depth depth, bool cutNode, bool skipEarlyPruning) {
|
2010-05-08 02:54:51 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-01-18 15:20:16 -07:00
|
|
|
const bool PvNode = NT == PV;
|
Let ss->ply denote the number of plies from the root to the current node
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.
2017-09-16 13:49:29 -06:00
|
|
|
const bool rootNode = PvNode && ss->ply == 0;
|
2011-05-28 05:13:42 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2014-02-15 01:20:27 -07:00
|
|
|
assert(-VALUE_INFINITE <= alpha && alpha < beta && beta <= VALUE_INFINITE);
|
2012-09-29 10:26:17 -06:00
|
|
|
assert(PvNode || (alpha == beta - 1));
|
2015-11-06 21:19:13 -07:00
|
|
|
assert(DEPTH_ZERO < depth && depth < DEPTH_MAX);
|
2016-06-23 08:14:51 -06:00
|
|
|
assert(!(PvNode && cutNode));
|
2016-08-19 04:17:38 -06:00
|
|
|
assert(depth / ONE_PLY * ONE_PLY == depth);
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2017-11-03 05:37:11 -06:00
|
|
|
Move pv[MAX_PLY+1], capturesSearched[32], quietsSearched[64];
|
2009-11-05 03:11:02 -07:00
|
|
|
StateInfo st;
|
2014-12-13 00:16:35 -07:00
|
|
|
TTEntry* tte;
|
2010-06-02 06:22:48 -06:00
|
|
|
Key posKey;
|
2013-12-14 04:27:29 -07:00
|
|
|
Move ttMove, move, excludedMove, bestMove;
|
2016-09-14 07:09:41 -06:00
|
|
|
Depth extension, newDepth;
|
2017-02-14 22:20:37 -07:00
|
|
|
Value bestValue, value, ttValue, eval;
|
2014-12-13 01:27:39 -07:00
|
|
|
bool ttHit, inCheck, givesCheck, singularExtensionNode, improving;
|
2017-09-30 08:16:28 -06:00
|
|
|
bool captureOrPromotion, doFullDepthSearch, moveCountPruning, skipQuiets, ttCapture, pvExact;
|
2017-08-09 19:43:30 -06:00
|
|
|
Piece movedPiece;
|
2017-11-03 05:37:11 -06:00
|
|
|
int moveCount, captureCount, quietCount;
|
2011-01-16 04:02:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-01 01:33:13 -06:00
|
|
|
// Step 1. Initialize node
|
2012-09-29 10:26:17 -06:00
|
|
|
Thread* thisThread = pos.this_thread();
|
2012-12-25 09:59:35 -07:00
|
|
|
inCheck = pos.checkers();
|
2017-11-03 05:37:11 -06:00
|
|
|
moveCount = captureCount = quietCount = ss->moveCount = 0;
|
2017-05-26 00:42:50 -06:00
|
|
|
ss->statScore = 0;
|
2012-10-01 01:33:13 -06:00
|
|
|
bestValue = -VALUE_INFINITE;
|
|
|
|
|
2016-01-16 14:34:29 -07:00
|
|
|
// Check for the available remaining time
|
2017-06-23 23:15:46 -06:00
|
|
|
if (thisThread == Threads.main())
|
|
|
|
static_cast<MainThread*>(thisThread)->check_time();
|
Get rid of timer thread
Unfortunately std::condition_variable::wait_for()
is not accurate in general case and the timer thread
can wake up also after tens or even hundreds of
millisecs after time has elapsded. CPU load, process
priorities, number of concurrent threads, even from
other processes, will have effect upon it.
Even official documentation says: "This function may
block for longer than timeout_duration due to scheduling
or resource contention delays."
So retire timer and use a polling scheme based on a
local thread counter that counts search() calls and
a small trick to keep polling frequency constant,
independently from the number of threads.
Tested for no regression at very fast TC 2+0.05 th 7:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 32969 W: 6720 L: 6620 D: 19629
TC 2+0.05 th 1:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 7765 W: 1917 L: 1765 D: 4083
And at STC TC, both single thread
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 15587 W: 3036 L: 2905 D: 9646
And with 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 8149 W: 1367 L: 1227 D: 5555
bench: 8639247
2015-11-03 03:15:14 -07:00
|
|
|
|
Let ss->ply denote the number of plies from the root to the current node
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.
2017-09-16 13:49:29 -06:00
|
|
|
// Used to send selDepth info to GUI (selDepth counts from 1, ply from 0)
|
|
|
|
if (PvNode && thisThread->selDepth < ss->ply + 1)
|
|
|
|
thisThread->selDepth = ss->ply + 1;
|
2009-11-05 03:11:02 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2016-01-18 15:20:16 -07:00
|
|
|
if (!rootNode)
|
2011-06-18 10:10:29 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2012-09-29 10:26:17 -06:00
|
|
|
// Step 2. Check for aborted search and immediate draw
|
2017-07-13 17:07:19 -06:00
|
|
|
if (Threads.stop.load(std::memory_order_relaxed) || pos.is_draw(ss->ply) || ss->ply >= MAX_PLY)
|
2015-10-25 01:30:07 -06:00
|
|
|
return ss->ply >= MAX_PLY && !inCheck ? evaluate(pos)
|
2015-10-23 23:27:24 -06:00
|
|
|
: DrawValue[pos.side_to_move()];
|
2012-09-29 10:26:17 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Step 3. Mate distance pruning. Even if we mate at the next move our score
|
|
|
|
// would be at best mate_in(ss->ply+1), but if alpha is already bigger because
|
|
|
|
// a shorter mate was found upward in the tree then there is no need to search
|
2013-12-02 11:04:09 -07:00
|
|
|
// because we will never beat the current alpha. Same logic but with reversed
|
|
|
|
// signs applies also in the opposite condition of being mated instead of giving
|
|
|
|
// mate. In this case return a fail-high score.
|
2011-12-27 08:01:33 -07:00
|
|
|
alpha = std::max(mated_in(ss->ply), alpha);
|
|
|
|
beta = std::min(mate_in(ss->ply+1), beta);
|
2011-06-18 10:10:29 -06:00
|
|
|
if (alpha >= beta)
|
|
|
|
return alpha;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2010-02-24 03:19:47 -07:00
|
|
|
|
Cleanup MAX_PLY
This area has become obscure and tricky over the course of incremental
changes that did not respect the original's consistency and clarity. Now,
it's not clear why we use MAX_PLY = 120, or why we use MAX_PLY+6, among
other things.
This patch does the following:
* ID loop: depth ranges from 1 to MAX_PLY-1, and due to TT constraint (depth
must fit into an int8_t), MAX_PLY should be 128.
* stack[]: plies now range from 0 to MAX_PLY-1, hence stack[MAX_PLY+4],
because of the extra 2+2 padding elements (for ss-2 and ss+2). Document this
better, while we're at it.
* Enforce 0 <= ply < MAX_PLY:
- stop condition is now ss->ply >= MAX_PLY and not ss->ply > MAX_PLY.
- assert(ss->ply < MAX_PLY), before using ss+1 and ss+2.
- as a result, we don't need the artificial MAX_PLY+6 range. Instead we
can use MAX_PLY+4 and it's clear why (for ss-2 and ss+2).
* fix: extract_pv_from_tt() and insert_pv_in_tt() had no reason to use
MAX_PLY_PLUS_6, because the array is indexed by plies, so the range of
available plies applies (0..MAX_PLY before, and now 0..MAX_PLY-1).
Tested with debug compile, using MAX_PLY=16, and running bench at depth 17,
using 1 and 7 threads. No assert() fired. Feel free to submit to more severe
crash-tests, if you can think of any.
No functional change.
2014-11-03 08:36:24 -07:00
|
|
|
assert(0 <= ss->ply && ss->ply < MAX_PLY);
|
|
|
|
|
Let ss->ply denote the number of plies from the root to the current node
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.
2017-09-16 13:49:29 -06:00
|
|
|
(ss+1)->ply = ss->ply + 1;
|
2015-12-20 13:37:18 -07:00
|
|
|
ss->currentMove = (ss+1)->excludedMove = bestMove = MOVE_NONE;
|
2017-06-30 09:20:00 -06:00
|
|
|
ss->contHistory = &thisThread->contHistory[NO_PIECE][0];
|
Cleanup MAX_PLY
This area has become obscure and tricky over the course of incremental
changes that did not respect the original's consistency and clarity. Now,
it's not clear why we use MAX_PLY = 120, or why we use MAX_PLY+6, among
other things.
This patch does the following:
* ID loop: depth ranges from 1 to MAX_PLY-1, and due to TT constraint (depth
must fit into an int8_t), MAX_PLY should be 128.
* stack[]: plies now range from 0 to MAX_PLY-1, hence stack[MAX_PLY+4],
because of the extra 2+2 padding elements (for ss-2 and ss+2). Document this
better, while we're at it.
* Enforce 0 <= ply < MAX_PLY:
- stop condition is now ss->ply >= MAX_PLY and not ss->ply > MAX_PLY.
- assert(ss->ply < MAX_PLY), before using ss+1 and ss+2.
- as a result, we don't need the artificial MAX_PLY+6 range. Instead we
can use MAX_PLY+4 and it's clear why (for ss-2 and ss+2).
* fix: extract_pv_from_tt() and insert_pv_in_tt() had no reason to use
MAX_PLY_PLUS_6, because the array is indexed by plies, so the range of
available plies applies (0..MAX_PLY before, and now 0..MAX_PLY-1).
Tested with debug compile, using MAX_PLY=16, and running bench at depth 17,
using 1 and 7 threads. No assert() fired. Feel free to submit to more severe
crash-tests, if you can think of any.
No functional change.
2014-11-03 08:36:24 -07:00
|
|
|
(ss+2)->killers[0] = (ss+2)->killers[1] = MOVE_NONE;
|
2016-12-05 10:58:12 -07:00
|
|
|
Square prevSq = to_sq((ss-1)->currentMove);
|
Cleanup MAX_PLY
This area has become obscure and tricky over the course of incremental
changes that did not respect the original's consistency and clarity. Now,
it's not clear why we use MAX_PLY = 120, or why we use MAX_PLY+6, among
other things.
This patch does the following:
* ID loop: depth ranges from 1 to MAX_PLY-1, and due to TT constraint (depth
must fit into an int8_t), MAX_PLY should be 128.
* stack[]: plies now range from 0 to MAX_PLY-1, hence stack[MAX_PLY+4],
because of the extra 2+2 padding elements (for ss-2 and ss+2). Document this
better, while we're at it.
* Enforce 0 <= ply < MAX_PLY:
- stop condition is now ss->ply >= MAX_PLY and not ss->ply > MAX_PLY.
- assert(ss->ply < MAX_PLY), before using ss+1 and ss+2.
- as a result, we don't need the artificial MAX_PLY+6 range. Instead we
can use MAX_PLY+4 and it's clear why (for ss-2 and ss+2).
* fix: extract_pv_from_tt() and insert_pv_in_tt() had no reason to use
MAX_PLY_PLUS_6, because the array is indexed by plies, so the range of
available plies applies (0..MAX_PLY before, and now 0..MAX_PLY-1).
Tested with debug compile, using MAX_PLY=16, and running bench at depth 17,
using 1 and 7 threads. No assert() fired. Feel free to submit to more severe
crash-tests, if you can think of any.
No functional change.
2014-11-03 08:36:24 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-23 23:27:24 -06:00
|
|
|
// Step 4. Transposition table lookup. We don't want the score of a partial
|
|
|
|
// search to overwrite a previous full search TT value, so we use a different
|
|
|
|
// position key in case of an excluded move.
|
2013-11-18 23:19:28 -07:00
|
|
|
excludedMove = ss->excludedMove;
|
2016-08-30 06:27:05 -06:00
|
|
|
posKey = pos.key() ^ Key(excludedMove);
|
2014-12-13 00:16:35 -07:00
|
|
|
tte = TT.probe(posKey, ttHit);
|
|
|
|
ttValue = ttHit ? value_from_tt(tte->value(), ss->ply) : VALUE_NONE;
|
2016-01-18 15:20:16 -07:00
|
|
|
ttMove = rootNode ? thisThread->rootMoves[thisThread->PVIdx].pv[0]
|
2015-12-20 13:37:18 -07:00
|
|
|
: ttHit ? tte->move() : MOVE_NONE;
|
2008-09-06 07:53:43 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-23 23:27:24 -06:00
|
|
|
// At non-PV nodes we check for an early TT cutoff
|
2014-11-18 03:57:57 -07:00
|
|
|
if ( !PvNode
|
2014-12-13 00:16:35 -07:00
|
|
|
&& ttHit
|
2012-12-15 03:11:38 -07:00
|
|
|
&& tte->depth() >= depth
|
2015-10-23 23:27:24 -06:00
|
|
|
&& ttValue != VALUE_NONE // Possible in case of TT access race
|
2014-11-12 14:13:55 -07:00
|
|
|
&& (ttValue >= beta ? (tte->bound() & BOUND_LOWER)
|
|
|
|
: (tte->bound() & BOUND_UPPER)))
|
2008-09-06 07:53:43 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-01-09 03:57:34 -07:00
|
|
|
// If ttMove is quiet, update move sorting heuristics on TT hit
|
2017-01-25 07:32:10 -07:00
|
|
|
if (ttMove)
|
2016-08-24 08:52:05 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-01-25 07:32:10 -07:00
|
|
|
if (ttValue >= beta)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (!pos.capture_or_promotion(ttMove))
|
|
|
|
update_stats(pos, ss, ttMove, nullptr, 0, stat_bonus(depth));
|
2017-11-03 05:37:11 -06:00
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
update_capture_stats(pos, ttMove, nullptr, 0, stat_bonus(depth));
|
2016-08-24 08:52:05 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2017-01-25 07:32:10 -07:00
|
|
|
// Extra penalty for a quiet TT move in previous ply when it gets refuted
|
|
|
|
if ((ss-1)->moveCount == 1 && !pos.captured_piece())
|
2017-06-30 09:20:00 -06:00
|
|
|
update_continuation_histories(ss-1, pos.piece_on(prevSq), prevSq, -stat_bonus(depth + ONE_PLY));
|
2017-01-25 07:32:10 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Penalty for a quiet ttMove that fails low
|
2017-01-29 00:54:58 -07:00
|
|
|
else if (!pos.capture_or_promotion(ttMove))
|
2017-01-25 07:32:10 -07:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-04-23 08:57:48 -06:00
|
|
|
int penalty = -stat_bonus(depth);
|
2017-06-30 09:20:00 -06:00
|
|
|
thisThread->mainHistory.update(pos.side_to_move(), ttMove, penalty);
|
|
|
|
update_continuation_histories(ss, pos.moved_piece(ttMove), to_sq(ttMove), penalty);
|
2017-01-25 07:32:10 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
2016-08-24 08:52:05 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
2012-12-15 03:11:38 -07:00
|
|
|
return ttValue;
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
|
|
|
// Step 4a. Tablebase probe
|
2016-01-18 15:20:16 -07:00
|
|
|
if (!rootNode && TB::Cardinality)
|
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-03-08 19:45:09 -07:00
|
|
|
int piecesCount = pos.count<ALL_PIECES>();
|
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2016-12-20 03:18:19 -07:00
|
|
|
if ( piecesCount <= TB::Cardinality
|
|
|
|
&& (piecesCount < TB::Cardinality || depth >= TB::ProbeDepth)
|
2016-01-20 08:24:21 -07:00
|
|
|
&& pos.rule50_count() == 0
|
|
|
|
&& !pos.can_castle(ANY_CASTLING))
|
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
|
|
|
{
|
2016-07-16 00:10:45 -06:00
|
|
|
TB::ProbeState err;
|
|
|
|
TB::WDLScore v = Tablebases::probe_wdl(pos, &err);
|
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2016-07-16 00:10:45 -06:00
|
|
|
if (err != TB::ProbeState::FAIL)
|
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-06-23 23:15:46 -06:00
|
|
|
thisThread->tbHits.fetch_add(1, std::memory_order_relaxed);
|
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
int drawScore = TB::UseRule50 ? 1 : 0;
|
|
|
|
|
Let ss->ply denote the number of plies from the root to the current node
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.
2017-09-16 13:49:29 -06:00
|
|
|
value = v < -drawScore ? -VALUE_MATE + MAX_PLY + ss->ply + 1
|
|
|
|
: v > drawScore ? VALUE_MATE - MAX_PLY - ss->ply - 1
|
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
|
|
|
: VALUE_DRAW + 2 * v * drawScore;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tte->save(posKey, value_to_tt(value, ss->ply), BOUND_EXACT,
|
|
|
|
std::min(DEPTH_MAX - ONE_PLY, depth + 6 * ONE_PLY),
|
|
|
|
MOVE_NONE, VALUE_NONE, TT.generation());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return value;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-18 14:58:13 -06:00
|
|
|
// Step 5. Evaluate the position statically
|
2011-04-29 08:26:48 -06:00
|
|
|
if (inCheck)
|
2013-07-07 05:27:31 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2013-11-08 03:42:22 -07:00
|
|
|
ss->staticEval = eval = VALUE_NONE;
|
2013-07-07 05:45:46 -06:00
|
|
|
goto moves_loop;
|
2013-07-07 05:27:31 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
2012-12-27 04:13:31 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-12-13 00:16:35 -07:00
|
|
|
else if (ttHit)
|
2010-01-17 04:55:10 -07:00
|
|
|
{
|
2012-12-31 08:28:40 -07:00
|
|
|
// Never assume anything on values stored in TT
|
2015-01-09 04:35:44 -07:00
|
|
|
if ((ss->staticEval = eval = tte->eval()) == VALUE_NONE)
|
2014-06-06 01:35:34 -06:00
|
|
|
eval = ss->staticEval = evaluate(pos);
|
2012-10-26 04:33:58 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-22 01:50:00 -06:00
|
|
|
// Can ttValue be used as a better position evaluation?
|
2017-07-27 03:14:18 -06:00
|
|
|
if ( ttValue != VALUE_NONE
|
|
|
|
&& (tte->bound() & (ttValue > eval ? BOUND_LOWER : BOUND_UPPER)))
|
|
|
|
eval = ttValue;
|
2012-12-27 04:13:31 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
2014-06-06 03:12:05 -06:00
|
|
|
eval = ss->staticEval =
|
2015-10-23 23:27:24 -06:00
|
|
|
(ss-1)->currentMove != MOVE_NULL ? evaluate(pos)
|
|
|
|
: -(ss-1)->staticEval + 2 * Eval::Tempo;
|
2014-06-06 03:12:05 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-23 23:27:24 -06:00
|
|
|
tte->save(posKey, VALUE_NONE, BOUND_NONE, DEPTH_NONE, MOVE_NONE,
|
|
|
|
ss->staticEval, TT.generation());
|
2011-10-31 01:28:59 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-12-11 12:05:25 -07:00
|
|
|
if (skipEarlyPruning)
|
2014-12-08 01:46:21 -07:00
|
|
|
goto moves_loop;
|
|
|
|
|
2013-07-19 01:37:31 -06:00
|
|
|
// Step 6. Razoring (skipped when in check)
|
2010-05-08 02:54:51 -06:00
|
|
|
if ( !PvNode
|
2012-10-03 02:08:10 -06:00
|
|
|
&& depth < 4 * ONE_PLY
|
2016-08-30 23:51:52 -06:00
|
|
|
&& eval + razor_margin[depth / ONE_PLY] <= alpha)
|
2010-02-24 03:26:36 -07:00
|
|
|
{
|
2016-09-29 07:24:36 -06:00
|
|
|
if (depth <= ONE_PLY)
|
2016-12-25 02:34:48 -07:00
|
|
|
return qsearch<NonPV, false>(pos, ss, alpha, alpha+1);
|
2014-05-13 14:33:41 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-19 04:17:38 -06:00
|
|
|
Value ralpha = alpha - razor_margin[depth / ONE_PLY];
|
2016-12-20 03:17:38 -07:00
|
|
|
Value v = qsearch<NonPV, false>(pos, ss, ralpha, ralpha+1);
|
Better document razoring
Use ralpha instead of rbeta
* rbeta is confusing people. It took THREE attempts to code razoring
at PV nodes correctly in a recent test, because of the rbeta trick.
Unnecessary tricks should be avoided.
* The more correct and self-documenting way of doing this, is to say
that we use a zero window around alpha-margin, not beta-margin.
The fact that, because we only do it at PV nodes, alpha happens to be
beta-1 and that the current stuff with rbeta works, may be correct,
but is confusing.
Remove the misleading and partially erroneous comment about returning
v + margin:
* comments should explain what the code does, not what it could have done.
* this comment is partially wrong in saying that v+margin is "logical",
and that it is "surprising" that is doesn't work.
From a theoretical perspective, at least 3 ways of doing this are equally
defendable:
1/ fail hard: return alpha: The most conservative. We bet that the search
will fail low, but we don't know by how much and don't want to take risks.
2/ aggressive fail soft: return v (what the current code does). This
corresponds to normal fail soft, with the added assumption that we don't
care about the reduction effect (see below point 3/)
3/ conservative fail soft: return v + margin. If the reduced search (qsearch)
gives us a score <= v, we bet that the non reduced search will give us a
score <= v + margin.
* Saying that 2/ is "logical" implies that 1/ and 3/ are not, which is
arguably wrong. Besides, experimental results tell us that 2/ beats 3/,
and that's not something we can argue against: experimental results are
the only trusted metric.
* Also, with the benefit of hindsight, I don't think the fact that 2/ is
better than 3/ is surprising at all. The point is that it is YOUR turn to
move, and you are assuming that by NOT playing (and letting the opponent
capture your hanging pieces in QS) you cannot generally GAIN razor_margin(depth).
No functional change.
2014-02-02 18:41:32 -07:00
|
|
|
if (v <= ralpha)
|
2010-03-03 23:52:35 -07:00
|
|
|
return v;
|
2010-02-24 03:26:36 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2013-11-08 03:42:22 -07:00
|
|
|
// Step 7. Futility pruning: child node (skipped when in check)
|
2016-01-18 15:20:16 -07:00
|
|
|
if ( !rootNode
|
2013-11-08 03:42:22 -07:00
|
|
|
&& depth < 7 * ONE_PLY
|
|
|
|
&& eval - futility_margin(depth) >= beta
|
2014-09-28 10:45:49 -06:00
|
|
|
&& eval < VALUE_KNOWN_WIN // Do not return unproven wins
|
2010-06-01 12:49:46 -06:00
|
|
|
&& pos.non_pawn_material(pos.side_to_move()))
|
2016-10-07 23:06:33 -06:00
|
|
|
return eval;
|
2010-01-21 10:03:06 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-05-08 02:54:51 -06:00
|
|
|
// Step 8. Null move search with verification search (is omitted in PV nodes)
|
|
|
|
if ( !PvNode
|
2012-10-22 01:50:00 -06:00
|
|
|
&& eval >= beta
|
2017-11-08 05:44:24 -07:00
|
|
|
&& ss->staticEval >= beta - 36 * depth / ONE_PLY + 225
|
2010-06-01 12:49:46 -06:00
|
|
|
&& pos.non_pawn_material(pos.side_to_move()))
|
2009-08-29 13:19:09 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
2014-01-24 13:52:56 -07:00
|
|
|
assert(eval - beta >= 0);
|
2009-11-13 03:25:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-01-24 13:52:56 -07:00
|
|
|
// Null move dynamic reduction based on depth and value
|
2016-08-19 04:17:38 -06:00
|
|
|
Depth R = ((823 + 67 * depth / ONE_PLY) / 256 + std::min((eval - beta) / PawnValueMg, 3)) * ONE_PLY;
|
2009-08-29 13:19:09 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2017-03-08 19:35:23 -07:00
|
|
|
ss->currentMove = MOVE_NULL;
|
2017-06-30 09:20:00 -06:00
|
|
|
ss->contHistory = &thisThread->contHistory[NO_PIECE][0];
|
2017-03-08 19:35:23 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2013-01-27 03:45:01 -07:00
|
|
|
pos.do_null_move(st);
|
2017-02-14 22:20:37 -07:00
|
|
|
Value nullValue = depth-R < ONE_PLY ? -qsearch<NonPV, false>(pos, ss+1, -beta, -beta+1)
|
|
|
|
: - search<NonPV>(pos, ss+1, -beta, -beta+1, depth-R, !cutNode, true);
|
2013-01-27 03:45:01 -07:00
|
|
|
pos.undo_null_move();
|
2009-08-24 08:46:03 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2014-02-12 06:16:21 -07:00
|
|
|
if (nullValue >= beta)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// Do not return unproven mate scores
|
|
|
|
if (nullValue >= VALUE_MATE_IN_MAX_PLY)
|
|
|
|
nullValue = beta;
|
|
|
|
|
2014-06-16 13:46:42 -06:00
|
|
|
if (depth < 12 * ONE_PLY && abs(beta) < VALUE_KNOWN_WIN)
|
2014-02-12 06:16:21 -07:00
|
|
|
return nullValue;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Do verification search at high depths
|
2016-12-20 03:17:38 -07:00
|
|
|
Value v = depth-R < ONE_PLY ? qsearch<NonPV, false>(pos, ss, beta-1, beta)
|
2016-12-11 12:05:25 -07:00
|
|
|
: search<NonPV>(pos, ss, beta-1, beta, depth-R, false, true);
|
2014-02-12 06:16:21 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (v >= beta)
|
|
|
|
return nullValue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2009-08-29 13:19:09 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2014-02-15 14:17:58 -07:00
|
|
|
// Step 9. ProbCut (skipped when in check)
|
2016-08-28 04:39:49 -06:00
|
|
|
// If we have a good enough capture and a reduced search returns a value
|
|
|
|
// much above beta, we can (almost) safely prune the previous move.
|
2011-05-21 10:17:11 -06:00
|
|
|
if ( !PvNode
|
2012-10-03 02:08:10 -06:00
|
|
|
&& depth >= 5 * ONE_PLY
|
2011-12-30 09:08:07 -07:00
|
|
|
&& abs(beta) < VALUE_MATE_IN_MAX_PLY)
|
2011-05-21 10:17:11 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2014-02-22 02:34:48 -07:00
|
|
|
Value rbeta = std::min(beta + 200, VALUE_INFINITE);
|
2011-05-21 10:17:11 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2017-03-08 19:35:23 -07:00
|
|
|
assert(is_ok((ss-1)->currentMove));
|
2011-05-21 10:17:11 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2017-11-03 05:37:11 -06:00
|
|
|
MovePicker mp(pos, ttMove, rbeta - ss->staticEval, &thisThread->captureHistory);
|
2011-05-21 10:17:11 -06:00
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
while ((move = mp.next_move()) != MOVE_NONE)
|
2016-07-03 02:35:44 -06:00
|
|
|
if (pos.legal(move))
|
2011-05-21 10:17:11 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2012-01-21 15:30:56 -07:00
|
|
|
ss->currentMove = move;
|
2017-06-30 09:20:00 -06:00
|
|
|
ss->contHistory = &thisThread->contHistory[pos.moved_piece(move)][to_sq(move)];
|
2017-03-08 19:35:23 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-16 20:27:36 -06:00
|
|
|
assert(depth >= 5 * ONE_PLY);
|
2016-11-11 06:02:28 -07:00
|
|
|
pos.do_move(move, st);
|
2017-06-16 20:27:36 -06:00
|
|
|
value = -search<NonPV>(pos, ss+1, -rbeta, -rbeta+1, depth - 4 * ONE_PLY, !cutNode, false);
|
2011-05-21 10:17:11 -06:00
|
|
|
pos.undo_move(move);
|
|
|
|
if (value >= rbeta)
|
|
|
|
return value;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2013-07-19 01:37:31 -06:00
|
|
|
// Step 10. Internal iterative deepening (skipped when in check)
|
2016-08-15 09:19:21 -06:00
|
|
|
if ( depth >= 6 * ONE_PLY
|
2014-02-15 01:20:27 -07:00
|
|
|
&& !ttMove
|
2014-04-27 02:13:59 -06:00
|
|
|
&& (PvNode || ss->staticEval + 256 >= beta))
|
2008-09-06 10:25:58 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2016-08-19 04:17:38 -06:00
|
|
|
Depth d = (3 * depth / (4 * ONE_PLY) - 2) * ONE_PLY;
|
2016-12-11 12:05:25 -07:00
|
|
|
search<NT>(pos, ss, alpha, beta, d, cutNode, true);
|
2010-06-02 06:32:31 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2014-12-13 00:16:35 -07:00
|
|
|
tte = TT.probe(posKey, ttHit);
|
|
|
|
ttMove = ttHit ? tte->move() : MOVE_NONE;
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
moves_loop: // When in check search starts from here
|
2010-10-16 03:01:45 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-30 09:20:00 -06:00
|
|
|
const PieceToHistory* contHist[] = { (ss-1)->contHistory, (ss-2)->contHistory, nullptr, (ss-4)->contHistory };
|
|
|
|
Move countermove = thisThread->counterMoves[pos.piece_on(prevSq)][prevSq];
|
2013-05-19 13:32:52 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2017-11-03 05:37:11 -06:00
|
|
|
MovePicker mp(pos, ttMove, depth, &thisThread->mainHistory, &thisThread->captureHistory, contHist, countermove, ss->killers);
|
2012-09-29 10:26:17 -06:00
|
|
|
value = bestValue; // Workaround a bogus 'uninitialized' warning under gcc
|
2013-08-09 00:21:55 -06:00
|
|
|
improving = ss->staticEval >= (ss-2)->staticEval
|
2016-06-23 08:08:43 -06:00
|
|
|
/* || ss->staticEval == VALUE_NONE Already implicit in the previous condition */
|
2013-08-09 00:21:55 -06:00
|
|
|
||(ss-2)->staticEval == VALUE_NONE;
|
|
|
|
|
2016-01-18 15:20:16 -07:00
|
|
|
singularExtensionNode = !rootNode
|
2013-09-07 01:32:01 -06:00
|
|
|
&& depth >= 8 * ONE_PLY
|
2012-04-28 04:08:10 -06:00
|
|
|
&& ttMove != MOVE_NONE
|
2016-09-21 06:02:35 -06:00
|
|
|
&& ttValue != VALUE_NONE
|
2011-12-10 11:14:13 -07:00
|
|
|
&& !excludedMove // Recursive singular search is not allowed
|
2013-06-29 02:23:43 -06:00
|
|
|
&& (tte->bound() & BOUND_LOWER)
|
2012-04-28 04:08:10 -06:00
|
|
|
&& tte->depth() >= depth - 3 * ONE_PLY;
|
2017-03-18 16:41:55 -06:00
|
|
|
skipQuiets = false;
|
2017-06-21 15:05:14 -06:00
|
|
|
ttCapture = false;
|
2017-09-30 08:16:28 -06:00
|
|
|
pvExact = PvNode && ttHit && tte->bound() == BOUND_EXACT;
|
2010-10-16 03:01:45 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-05-21 10:17:11 -06:00
|
|
|
// Step 11. Loop through moves
|
2011-05-28 05:57:36 -06:00
|
|
|
// Loop through all pseudo-legal moves until no moves remain or a beta cutoff occurs
|
2017-03-18 16:41:55 -06:00
|
|
|
while ((move = mp.next_move(skipQuiets)) != MOVE_NONE)
|
2008-09-06 10:25:58 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2011-10-03 02:56:49 -06:00
|
|
|
assert(is_ok(move));
|
2011-01-16 15:40:06 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-05-28 03:35:52 -06:00
|
|
|
if (move == excludedMove)
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
|
2011-10-08 03:51:39 -06:00
|
|
|
// At root obey the "searchmoves" option and skip moves not listed in Root
|
2013-12-04 23:18:12 -07:00
|
|
|
// Move List. As a consequence any illegal move is also skipped. In MultiPV
|
2011-10-08 03:51:39 -06:00
|
|
|
// mode we also skip PV moves which have been already searched.
|
2016-01-18 15:20:16 -07:00
|
|
|
if (rootNode && !std::count(thisThread->rootMoves.begin() + thisThread->PVIdx,
|
2015-10-23 23:27:24 -06:00
|
|
|
thisThread->rootMoves.end(), move))
|
2011-07-31 06:18:52 -06:00
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
ss->moveCount = ++moveCount;
|
2012-09-29 09:41:53 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-01-18 15:20:16 -07:00
|
|
|
if (rootNode && thisThread == Threads.main() && Time.elapsed() > 3000)
|
2015-12-09 00:07:34 -07:00
|
|
|
sync_cout << "info depth " << depth / ONE_PLY
|
|
|
|
<< " currmove " << UCI::move(move, pos.is_chess960())
|
|
|
|
<< " currmovenumber " << moveCount + thisThread->PVIdx << sync_endl;
|
2011-01-16 04:02:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-11-12 14:13:55 -07:00
|
|
|
if (PvNode)
|
2015-01-18 00:00:50 -07:00
|
|
|
(ss+1)->pv = nullptr;
|
2014-11-12 14:13:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-12-07 16:53:33 -07:00
|
|
|
extension = DEPTH_ZERO;
|
2013-09-28 06:43:50 -06:00
|
|
|
captureOrPromotion = pos.capture_or_promotion(move);
|
2017-08-09 19:43:30 -06:00
|
|
|
movedPiece = pos.moved_piece(move);
|
2014-02-08 05:21:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2016-07-03 02:35:44 -06:00
|
|
|
givesCheck = type_of(move) == NORMAL && !pos.discovered_check_candidates()
|
2016-08-27 02:05:42 -06:00
|
|
|
? pos.check_squares(type_of(pos.piece_on(from_sq(move)))) & to_sq(move)
|
2016-07-03 02:35:44 -06:00
|
|
|
: pos.gives_check(move);
|
2014-02-08 05:21:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2016-06-06 07:39:26 -06:00
|
|
|
moveCountPruning = depth < 16 * ONE_PLY
|
2016-08-19 04:17:38 -06:00
|
|
|
&& moveCount >= FutilityMoveCounts[improving][depth / ONE_PLY];
|
2016-06-06 07:39:26 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2017-03-25 11:10:33 -06:00
|
|
|
// Step 12. Singular and Gives Check Extensions
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-04-03 02:19:08 -06:00
|
|
|
// Singular extension search. If all moves but one fail low on a search of
|
|
|
|
// (alpha-s, beta-s), and just one fails high on (alpha, beta), then that move
|
|
|
|
// is singular and should be extended. To verify this we do a reduced search
|
2013-12-02 11:04:09 -07:00
|
|
|
// on all the other moves but the ttMove and if the result is lower than
|
2017-04-28 21:40:01 -06:00
|
|
|
// ttValue minus a margin then we will extend the ttMove.
|
2012-04-28 04:08:10 -06:00
|
|
|
if ( singularExtensionNode
|
|
|
|
&& move == ttMove
|
2016-07-03 02:35:44 -06:00
|
|
|
&& pos.legal(move))
|
2009-11-21 06:22:52 -07:00
|
|
|
{
|
2016-09-21 06:02:35 -06:00
|
|
|
Value rBeta = std::max(ttValue - 2 * depth / ONE_PLY, -VALUE_MATE);
|
2016-08-19 04:17:38 -06:00
|
|
|
Depth d = (depth / (2 * ONE_PLY)) * ONE_PLY;
|
2012-07-14 05:18:14 -06:00
|
|
|
ss->excludedMove = move;
|
2016-12-11 12:05:25 -07:00
|
|
|
value = search<NonPV>(pos, ss, rBeta - 1, rBeta, d, cutNode, true);
|
2012-07-14 05:18:14 -06:00
|
|
|
ss->excludedMove = MOVE_NONE;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (value < rBeta)
|
2014-12-07 16:53:33 -07:00
|
|
|
extension = ONE_PLY;
|
2009-11-21 06:22:52 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
2017-04-22 01:03:17 -06:00
|
|
|
else if ( givesCheck
|
2017-03-25 11:10:33 -06:00
|
|
|
&& !moveCountPruning
|
2017-05-09 05:50:05 -06:00
|
|
|
&& pos.see_ge(move))
|
2017-03-25 11:10:33 -06:00
|
|
|
extension = ONE_PLY;
|
2009-11-21 06:22:52 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2017-01-17 06:50:03 -07:00
|
|
|
// Calculate new depth for this move
|
2014-12-07 16:53:33 -07:00
|
|
|
newDepth = depth - ONE_PLY + extension;
|
2009-11-21 08:05:18 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-14 13:11:33 -07:00
|
|
|
// Step 13. Pruning at shallow depth
|
2016-09-07 21:57:52 -06:00
|
|
|
if ( !rootNode
|
2017-04-07 18:07:40 -06:00
|
|
|
&& pos.non_pawn_material(pos.side_to_move())
|
2016-10-15 15:35:10 -06:00
|
|
|
&& bestValue > VALUE_MATED_IN_MAX_PLY)
|
2008-09-06 10:25:58 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2016-09-07 21:57:52 -06:00
|
|
|
if ( !captureOrPromotion
|
|
|
|
&& !givesCheck
|
2017-04-22 01:03:17 -06:00
|
|
|
&& (!pos.advanced_pawn_push(move) || pos.non_pawn_material() >= Value(5000)))
|
2016-09-07 21:57:52 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// Move count based pruning
|
2017-04-22 01:03:17 -06:00
|
|
|
if (moveCountPruning)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2017-03-18 16:41:55 -06:00
|
|
|
skipQuiets = true;
|
2016-09-07 21:57:52 -06:00
|
|
|
continue;
|
2017-03-18 16:41:55 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-09-14 07:09:41 -06:00
|
|
|
// Reduced depth of the next LMR search
|
2017-08-29 11:06:19 -06:00
|
|
|
int lmrDepth = std::max(newDepth - reduction<PvNode>(improving, depth, moveCount), DEPTH_ZERO) / ONE_PLY;
|
2016-08-12 11:55:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-09-07 21:57:52 -06:00
|
|
|
// Countermoves based pruning
|
2016-09-14 07:09:41 -06:00
|
|
|
if ( lmrDepth < 3
|
2017-08-09 19:43:30 -06:00
|
|
|
&& (*contHist[0])[movedPiece][to_sq(move)] < CounterMovePruneThreshold
|
|
|
|
&& (*contHist[1])[movedPiece][to_sq(move)] < CounterMovePruneThreshold)
|
2016-09-07 21:57:52 -06:00
|
|
|
continue;
|
2015-10-21 16:21:23 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-09-07 21:57:52 -06:00
|
|
|
// Futility pruning: parent node
|
2016-09-14 07:09:41 -06:00
|
|
|
if ( lmrDepth < 7
|
2016-10-15 15:35:10 -06:00
|
|
|
&& !inCheck
|
2016-09-14 07:09:41 -06:00
|
|
|
&& ss->staticEval + 256 + 200 * lmrDepth <= alpha)
|
2016-09-07 21:57:52 -06:00
|
|
|
continue;
|
2013-11-07 14:29:07 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2016-09-14 07:09:41 -06:00
|
|
|
// Prune moves with negative SEE
|
|
|
|
if ( lmrDepth < 8
|
2016-10-06 11:55:10 -06:00
|
|
|
&& !pos.see_ge(move, Value(-35 * lmrDepth * lmrDepth)))
|
2016-09-14 07:09:41 -06:00
|
|
|
continue;
|
2016-07-23 01:49:18 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
2016-12-16 09:05:34 -07:00
|
|
|
else if ( depth < 7 * ONE_PLY
|
|
|
|
&& !extension
|
|
|
|
&& !pos.see_ge(move, -PawnValueEg * (depth / ONE_PLY)))
|
2016-09-14 07:09:41 -06:00
|
|
|
continue;
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2014-10-03 22:07:55 -06:00
|
|
|
// Speculative prefetch as early as possible
|
2015-02-07 11:13:41 -07:00
|
|
|
prefetch(TT.first_entry(pos.key_after(move)));
|
2014-10-02 15:19:14 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2013-12-02 11:04:09 -07:00
|
|
|
// Check for legality just before making the move
|
2016-07-03 02:35:44 -06:00
|
|
|
if (!rootNode && !pos.legal(move))
|
2011-05-28 03:35:52 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2015-07-28 04:53:13 -06:00
|
|
|
ss->moveCount = --moveCount;
|
2011-05-23 07:14:47 -06:00
|
|
|
continue;
|
2011-05-28 03:35:52 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
2017-06-23 23:15:46 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-21 15:05:14 -06:00
|
|
|
if (move == ttMove && captureOrPromotion)
|
|
|
|
ttCapture = true;
|
2011-05-23 07:14:47 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2017-01-17 06:50:03 -07:00
|
|
|
// Update the current move (this must be done after singular extension search)
|
2011-05-23 07:14:47 -06:00
|
|
|
ss->currentMove = move;
|
2017-08-09 19:43:30 -06:00
|
|
|
ss->contHistory = &thisThread->contHistory[movedPiece][to_sq(move)];
|
2011-05-23 07:14:47 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-05-21 10:17:11 -06:00
|
|
|
// Step 14. Make the move
|
Compute checkers from scratch
This micro-optimization only complicates the code and provides no benefit.
Removing it is even a speedup on my machine (i7-3770k, linux, gcc 4.9.1):
stat test master diff
mean 2,403,118 2,390,904 12,214
stdev 12,043 10,620 3,677
speedup 0.51%
P(speedup>0) 100.0%
No functional change.
2015-02-15 00:49:20 -07:00
|
|
|
pos.do_move(move, st, givesCheck);
|
2008-09-03 15:33:49 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2013-12-04 23:18:12 -07:00
|
|
|
// Step 15. Reduced depth search (LMR). If the move fails high it will be
|
2011-11-19 05:55:26 -07:00
|
|
|
// re-searched at full depth.
|
2013-09-07 01:20:22 -06:00
|
|
|
if ( depth >= 3 * ONE_PLY
|
2014-11-07 14:40:24 -07:00
|
|
|
&& moveCount > 1
|
2016-08-16 07:53:45 -06:00
|
|
|
&& (!captureOrPromotion || moveCountPruning))
|
2008-09-06 10:25:58 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-09-04 14:27:22 -06:00
|
|
|
Depth r = reduction<PvNode>(improving, depth, moveCount);
|
2016-08-16 07:53:45 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (captureOrPromotion)
|
|
|
|
r -= r ? ONE_PLY : DEPTH_ZERO;
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
2017-09-04 14:27:22 -06:00
|
|
|
// Decrease reduction if opponent's move count is high
|
|
|
|
if ((ss-1)->moveCount > 15)
|
|
|
|
r -= ONE_PLY;
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-30 08:16:28 -06:00
|
|
|
// Decrease reduction for exact PV nodes
|
|
|
|
if (pvExact)
|
|
|
|
r -= ONE_PLY;
|
|
|
|
|
2017-06-21 15:05:14 -06:00
|
|
|
// Increase reduction if ttMove is a capture
|
|
|
|
if (ttCapture)
|
|
|
|
r += ONE_PLY;
|
2017-06-23 23:15:46 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-16 07:53:45 -06:00
|
|
|
// Increase reduction for cut nodes
|
|
|
|
if (cutNode)
|
|
|
|
r += 2 * ONE_PLY;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Decrease reduction for moves that escape a capture. Filter out
|
|
|
|
// castling moves, because they are coded as "king captures rook" and
|
2016-11-07 15:34:11 -07:00
|
|
|
// hence break make_move().
|
2017-05-09 05:50:05 -06:00
|
|
|
else if ( type_of(move) == NORMAL
|
|
|
|
&& !pos.see_ge(make_move(to_sq(move), from_sq(move))))
|
2016-08-16 07:53:45 -06:00
|
|
|
r -= 2 * ONE_PLY;
|
|
|
|
|
2017-06-30 09:20:00 -06:00
|
|
|
ss->statScore = thisThread->mainHistory[~pos.side_to_move()][from_to(move)]
|
2017-08-09 19:43:30 -06:00
|
|
|
+ (*contHist[0])[movedPiece][to_sq(move)]
|
|
|
|
+ (*contHist[1])[movedPiece][to_sq(move)]
|
|
|
|
+ (*contHist[3])[movedPiece][to_sq(move)]
|
2017-06-30 09:20:00 -06:00
|
|
|
- 4000;
|
2016-10-24 08:05:02 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Decrease/increase reduction by comparing opponent's stat score
|
2017-09-21 00:58:29 -06:00
|
|
|
if (ss->statScore >= 0 && (ss-1)->statScore < 0)
|
2016-10-24 08:05:02 -06:00
|
|
|
r -= ONE_PLY;
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-21 00:58:29 -06:00
|
|
|
else if ((ss-1)->statScore >= 0 && ss->statScore < 0)
|
2016-10-24 08:05:02 -06:00
|
|
|
r += ONE_PLY;
|
|
|
|
|
2016-08-16 07:53:45 -06:00
|
|
|
// Decrease/increase reduction for moves with a good/bad history
|
2017-05-26 00:42:50 -06:00
|
|
|
r = std::max(DEPTH_ZERO, (r / ONE_PLY - ss->statScore / 20000) * ONE_PLY);
|
2016-08-16 07:53:45 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
2014-06-03 03:32:45 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2015-12-20 14:45:21 -07:00
|
|
|
Depth d = std::max(newDepth - r, ONE_PLY);
|
2011-06-25 07:31:57 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-12-11 12:05:25 -07:00
|
|
|
value = -search<NonPV>(pos, ss+1, -(alpha+1), -alpha, d, true, false);
|
2011-06-25 07:31:57 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-16 07:53:45 -06:00
|
|
|
doFullDepthSearch = (value > alpha && d != newDepth);
|
2011-11-19 05:55:26 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
2014-11-08 03:39:38 -07:00
|
|
|
doFullDepthSearch = !PvNode || moveCount > 1;
|
2010-05-08 02:54:51 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-01-16 14:34:29 -07:00
|
|
|
// Step 16. Full depth search when LMR is skipped or fails high
|
2011-11-19 05:55:26 -07:00
|
|
|
if (doFullDepthSearch)
|
2014-09-29 06:08:56 -06:00
|
|
|
value = newDepth < ONE_PLY ?
|
2016-12-20 03:17:38 -07:00
|
|
|
givesCheck ? -qsearch<NonPV, true>(pos, ss+1, -(alpha+1), -alpha)
|
|
|
|
: -qsearch<NonPV, false>(pos, ss+1, -(alpha+1), -alpha)
|
2016-12-11 12:05:25 -07:00
|
|
|
: - search<NonPV>(pos, ss+1, -(alpha+1), -alpha, newDepth, !cutNode, false);
|
2010-02-24 03:55:58 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2013-12-02 11:04:09 -07:00
|
|
|
// For PV nodes only, do a full PV search on the first move or after a fail
|
|
|
|
// high (in the latter case search only if value < beta), otherwise let the
|
2016-01-16 14:34:29 -07:00
|
|
|
// parent node fail low with value <= alpha and try another move.
|
2016-01-18 15:20:16 -07:00
|
|
|
if (PvNode && (moveCount == 1 || (value > alpha && (rootNode || value < beta))))
|
2014-11-18 03:57:57 -07:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
(ss+1)->pv = pv;
|
2014-11-21 01:10:52 -07:00
|
|
|
(ss+1)->pv[0] = MOVE_NONE;
|
|
|
|
|
2014-09-29 06:08:56 -06:00
|
|
|
value = newDepth < ONE_PLY ?
|
2016-12-20 03:17:38 -07:00
|
|
|
givesCheck ? -qsearch<PV, true>(pos, ss+1, -beta, -alpha)
|
|
|
|
: -qsearch<PV, false>(pos, ss+1, -beta, -alpha)
|
2016-12-11 12:05:25 -07:00
|
|
|
: - search<PV>(pos, ss+1, -beta, -alpha, newDepth, false, false);
|
2014-11-12 14:13:55 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
2014-11-18 03:57:57 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-05-21 10:17:11 -06:00
|
|
|
// Step 17. Undo move
|
2009-02-22 09:49:52 -07:00
|
|
|
pos.undo_move(move);
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
assert(value > -VALUE_INFINITE && value < VALUE_INFINITE);
|
2008-09-03 15:33:49 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-01-16 14:34:29 -07:00
|
|
|
// Step 18. Check for a new best move
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
// Finished searching the move. If a stop occurred, the return value of
|
|
|
|
// the search cannot be trusted, and we return immediately without
|
2014-05-01 00:28:49 -06:00
|
|
|
// updating best move, PV and TT.
|
2017-07-13 17:07:19 -06:00
|
|
|
if (Threads.stop.load(std::memory_order_relaxed))
|
2014-05-01 08:25:17 -06:00
|
|
|
return VALUE_ZERO;
|
2013-08-15 01:36:26 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-01-18 15:20:16 -07:00
|
|
|
if (rootNode)
|
2011-01-16 04:02:32 -07:00
|
|
|
{
|
2015-10-23 23:27:24 -06:00
|
|
|
RootMove& rm = *std::find(thisThread->rootMoves.begin(),
|
|
|
|
thisThread->rootMoves.end(), move);
|
2011-01-16 04:02:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-02-17 01:24:55 -07:00
|
|
|
// PV move or new best move ?
|
2014-11-08 03:39:38 -07:00
|
|
|
if (moveCount == 1 || value > alpha)
|
2011-01-16 04:02:32 -07:00
|
|
|
{
|
2011-12-12 09:55:20 -07:00
|
|
|
rm.score = value;
|
2017-07-13 17:30:03 -06:00
|
|
|
rm.selDepth = thisThread->selDepth;
|
2014-11-12 14:13:55 -07:00
|
|
|
rm.pv.resize(1);
|
2014-11-21 01:10:52 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
assert((ss+1)->pv);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for (Move* m = (ss+1)->pv; *m != MOVE_NONE; ++m)
|
|
|
|
rm.pv.push_back(*m);
|
2011-01-16 04:02:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// We record how often the best move has been changed in each
|
2011-02-12 11:04:27 -07:00
|
|
|
// iteration. This information is used for time management: When
|
2011-01-16 04:02:32 -07:00
|
|
|
// the best move changes frequently, we allocate some more time.
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
if (moveCount > 1 && thisThread == Threads.main())
|
2015-12-23 02:07:54 -07:00
|
|
|
++static_cast<MainThread*>(thisThread)->bestMoveChanges;
|
2011-02-17 01:24:55 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
2017-07-23 18:25:23 -06:00
|
|
|
// All other moves but the PV are set to the lowest value: this
|
|
|
|
// is not a problem when sorting because the sort is stable and the
|
2013-12-02 11:04:09 -07:00
|
|
|
// move position in the list is preserved - just the PV is pushed up.
|
2011-12-12 09:55:20 -07:00
|
|
|
rm.score = -VALUE_INFINITE;
|
2011-12-10 11:14:13 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
2011-01-16 04:02:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-08-06 02:15:46 -06:00
|
|
|
if (value > bestValue)
|
|
|
|
{
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
bestValue = value;
|
2011-08-06 02:15:46 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-03 06:11:20 -06:00
|
|
|
if (value > alpha)
|
2012-10-01 01:33:13 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
bestMove = move;
|
2012-10-03 06:11:20 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-01-18 15:20:16 -07:00
|
|
|
if (PvNode && !rootNode) // Update pv even in fail-high case
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
update_pv(ss->pv, move, (ss+1)->pv);
|
2014-11-12 14:13:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2013-01-13 04:34:31 -07:00
|
|
|
if (PvNode && value < beta) // Update alpha! Always alpha < beta
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
alpha = value;
|
2012-11-17 04:44:19 -07:00
|
|
|
else
|
2012-10-05 07:00:35 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2012-11-17 04:44:19 -07:00
|
|
|
assert(value >= beta); // Fail high
|
2012-10-05 07:00:35 -06:00
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2011-08-06 02:15:46 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
if (!captureOrPromotion && move != bestMove && quietCount < 64)
|
2015-04-10 13:32:39 -06:00
|
|
|
quietsSearched[quietCount++] = move;
|
2017-11-03 05:37:11 -06:00
|
|
|
else if (captureOrPromotion && move != bestMove && captureCount < 32)
|
|
|
|
capturesSearched[captureCount++] = move;
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-01-16 14:34:29 -07:00
|
|
|
// The following condition would detect a stop only after move loop has been
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
// completed. But in this case bestValue is valid because we have fully
|
|
|
|
// searched our subtree, and we can anyhow save the result in TT.
|
2014-05-01 00:28:49 -06:00
|
|
|
/*
|
2017-07-13 17:07:19 -06:00
|
|
|
if (Threads.stop)
|
2014-05-01 00:28:49 -06:00
|
|
|
return VALUE_DRAW;
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
2011-05-21 10:17:11 -06:00
|
|
|
// Step 20. Check for mate and stalemate
|
2011-10-18 04:24:47 -06:00
|
|
|
// All legal moves have been searched and if there are no legal moves, it
|
2016-01-16 14:34:29 -07:00
|
|
|
// must be a mate or a stalemate. If we are in a singular extension search then
|
2014-05-01 00:28:49 -06:00
|
|
|
// return a fail low score.
|
2016-10-03 07:36:40 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
assert(moveCount || !inCheck || excludedMove || !MoveList<LEGAL>(pos).size());
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-03 06:11:20 -06:00
|
|
|
if (!moveCount)
|
2014-05-11 02:56:25 -06:00
|
|
|
bestValue = excludedMove ? alpha
|
|
|
|
: inCheck ? mated_in(ss->ply) : DrawValue[pos.side_to_move()];
|
2016-08-23 07:57:56 -06:00
|
|
|
else if (bestMove)
|
2016-08-24 08:52:05 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-01-09 03:57:34 -07:00
|
|
|
// Quiet best move: update move sorting heuristics
|
2016-08-24 08:52:05 -06:00
|
|
|
if (!pos.capture_or_promotion(bestMove))
|
2017-01-25 07:32:10 -07:00
|
|
|
update_stats(pos, ss, bestMove, quietsSearched, quietCount, stat_bonus(depth));
|
2017-11-03 05:37:11 -06:00
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
update_capture_stats(pos, bestMove, capturesSearched, captureCount, stat_bonus(depth));
|
2016-08-24 08:52:05 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Extra penalty for a quiet TT move in previous ply when it gets refuted
|
2016-09-03 10:14:01 -06:00
|
|
|
if ((ss-1)->moveCount == 1 && !pos.captured_piece())
|
2017-06-30 09:20:00 -06:00
|
|
|
update_continuation_histories(ss-1, pos.piece_on(prevSq), prevSq, -stat_bonus(depth + ONE_PLY));
|
2016-08-24 08:52:05 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
2015-10-12 15:00:54 -06:00
|
|
|
// Bonus for prior countermove that caused the fail low
|
2015-10-23 23:27:24 -06:00
|
|
|
else if ( depth >= 3 * ONE_PLY
|
2016-09-03 10:14:01 -06:00
|
|
|
&& !pos.captured_piece()
|
2017-04-20 12:22:24 -06:00
|
|
|
&& is_ok((ss-1)->currentMove))
|
2017-06-30 09:20:00 -06:00
|
|
|
update_continuation_histories(ss-1, pos.piece_on(prevSq), prevSq, stat_bonus(depth));
|
2015-10-12 15:00:54 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2017-04-22 01:03:17 -06:00
|
|
|
if (!excludedMove)
|
2017-04-02 21:31:52 -06:00
|
|
|
tte->save(posKey, value_to_tt(bestValue, ss->ply),
|
2017-04-22 01:03:17 -06:00
|
|
|
bestValue >= beta ? BOUND_LOWER :
|
|
|
|
PvNode && bestMove ? BOUND_EXACT : BOUND_UPPER,
|
|
|
|
depth, bestMove, ss->staticEval, TT.generation());
|
2010-05-08 02:54:51 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2009-03-22 07:49:18 -06:00
|
|
|
assert(bestValue > -VALUE_INFINITE && bestValue < VALUE_INFINITE);
|
|
|
|
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
return bestValue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2008-09-03 15:33:49 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-12-10 11:14:13 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
// qsearch() is the quiescence search function, which is called by the main
|
2016-12-20 03:17:38 -07:00
|
|
|
// search function with depth zero, or recursively with depth less than ONE_PLY.
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-01 07:49:54 -06:00
|
|
|
template <NodeType NT, bool InCheck>
|
2011-12-04 03:46:31 -07:00
|
|
|
Value qsearch(Position& pos, Stack* ss, Value alpha, Value beta, Depth depth) {
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2014-05-04 05:11:32 -06:00
|
|
|
const bool PvNode = NT == PV;
|
2011-05-28 05:13:42 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2012-12-25 09:59:35 -07:00
|
|
|
assert(InCheck == !!pos.checkers());
|
2011-12-26 17:00:44 -07:00
|
|
|
assert(alpha >= -VALUE_INFINITE && alpha < beta && beta <= VALUE_INFINITE);
|
2012-10-07 01:34:04 -06:00
|
|
|
assert(PvNode || (alpha == beta - 1));
|
2011-12-26 17:00:44 -07:00
|
|
|
assert(depth <= DEPTH_ZERO);
|
2016-08-19 04:17:38 -06:00
|
|
|
assert(depth / ONE_PLY * ONE_PLY == depth);
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2014-11-18 03:57:57 -07:00
|
|
|
Move pv[MAX_PLY+1];
|
2009-11-05 03:11:02 -07:00
|
|
|
StateInfo st;
|
2014-12-13 00:16:35 -07:00
|
|
|
TTEntry* tte;
|
2012-10-07 01:34:04 -06:00
|
|
|
Key posKey;
|
|
|
|
Move ttMove, move, bestMove;
|
2012-12-15 03:11:38 -07:00
|
|
|
Value bestValue, value, ttValue, futilityValue, futilityBase, oldAlpha;
|
2014-12-13 01:27:39 -07:00
|
|
|
bool ttHit, givesCheck, evasionPrunable;
|
2010-12-18 02:27:24 -07:00
|
|
|
Depth ttDepth;
|
2017-05-21 19:25:20 -06:00
|
|
|
int moveCount;
|
2009-11-05 03:11:02 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-11-18 03:57:57 -07:00
|
|
|
if (PvNode)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
oldAlpha = alpha; // To flag BOUND_EXACT when eval above alpha and no available moves
|
|
|
|
(ss+1)->pv = pv;
|
|
|
|
ss->pv[0] = MOVE_NONE;
|
2014-11-12 14:13:55 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2012-02-20 06:21:25 -07:00
|
|
|
ss->currentMove = bestMove = MOVE_NONE;
|
Let ss->ply denote the number of plies from the root to the current node
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.
2017-09-16 13:49:29 -06:00
|
|
|
(ss+1)->ply = ss->ply + 1;
|
2017-05-21 19:25:20 -06:00
|
|
|
moveCount = 0;
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2013-12-02 11:04:09 -07:00
|
|
|
// Check for an instant draw or if the maximum ply has been reached
|
Threefold repetition detection
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
2016-12-12 08:04:16 -07:00
|
|
|
if (pos.is_draw(ss->ply) || ss->ply >= MAX_PLY)
|
2015-10-23 23:27:24 -06:00
|
|
|
return ss->ply >= MAX_PLY && !InCheck ? evaluate(pos)
|
|
|
|
: DrawValue[pos.side_to_move()];
|
Cleanup MAX_PLY
This area has become obscure and tricky over the course of incremental
changes that did not respect the original's consistency and clarity. Now,
it's not clear why we use MAX_PLY = 120, or why we use MAX_PLY+6, among
other things.
This patch does the following:
* ID loop: depth ranges from 1 to MAX_PLY-1, and due to TT constraint (depth
must fit into an int8_t), MAX_PLY should be 128.
* stack[]: plies now range from 0 to MAX_PLY-1, hence stack[MAX_PLY+4],
because of the extra 2+2 padding elements (for ss-2 and ss+2). Document this
better, while we're at it.
* Enforce 0 <= ply < MAX_PLY:
- stop condition is now ss->ply >= MAX_PLY and not ss->ply > MAX_PLY.
- assert(ss->ply < MAX_PLY), before using ss+1 and ss+2.
- as a result, we don't need the artificial MAX_PLY+6 range. Instead we
can use MAX_PLY+4 and it's clear why (for ss-2 and ss+2).
* fix: extract_pv_from_tt() and insert_pv_in_tt() had no reason to use
MAX_PLY_PLUS_6, because the array is indexed by plies, so the range of
available plies applies (0..MAX_PLY before, and now 0..MAX_PLY-1).
Tested with debug compile, using MAX_PLY=16, and running bench at depth 17,
using 1 and 7 threads. No assert() fired. Feel free to submit to more severe
crash-tests, if you can think of any.
No functional change.
2014-11-03 08:36:24 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
assert(0 <= ss->ply && ss->ply < MAX_PLY);
|
2011-07-19 20:31:50 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2013-12-02 11:04:09 -07:00
|
|
|
// Decide whether or not to include checks: this fixes also the type of
|
2013-03-11 08:18:15 -06:00
|
|
|
// TT entry depth that we are going to use. Note that in qsearch we use
|
|
|
|
// only two types of depth in TT: DEPTH_QS_CHECKS or DEPTH_QS_NO_CHECKS.
|
|
|
|
ttDepth = InCheck || depth >= DEPTH_QS_CHECKS ? DEPTH_QS_CHECKS
|
|
|
|
: DEPTH_QS_NO_CHECKS;
|
2013-06-30 05:12:04 -06:00
|
|
|
// Transposition table lookup
|
2012-10-07 01:34:04 -06:00
|
|
|
posKey = pos.key();
|
2014-12-13 00:16:35 -07:00
|
|
|
tte = TT.probe(posKey, ttHit);
|
|
|
|
ttMove = ttHit ? tte->move() : MOVE_NONE;
|
|
|
|
ttValue = ttHit ? value_from_tt(tte->value(), ss->ply) : VALUE_NONE;
|
2012-10-07 01:34:04 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2014-11-18 03:57:57 -07:00
|
|
|
if ( !PvNode
|
2014-12-13 00:16:35 -07:00
|
|
|
&& ttHit
|
2012-12-15 03:11:38 -07:00
|
|
|
&& tte->depth() >= ttDepth
|
|
|
|
&& ttValue != VALUE_NONE // Only in case of TT access race
|
2014-11-12 14:13:55 -07:00
|
|
|
&& (ttValue >= beta ? (tte->bound() & BOUND_LOWER)
|
|
|
|
: (tte->bound() & BOUND_UPPER)))
|
2012-12-15 03:11:38 -07:00
|
|
|
return ttValue;
|
2008-09-08 23:37:46 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2009-11-28 03:52:13 -07:00
|
|
|
// Evaluate the position statically
|
2012-11-01 07:49:54 -06:00
|
|
|
if (InCheck)
|
2010-05-22 02:56:46 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2013-11-08 03:42:22 -07:00
|
|
|
ss->staticEval = VALUE_NONE;
|
2010-06-03 11:29:48 -06:00
|
|
|
bestValue = futilityBase = -VALUE_INFINITE;
|
2010-05-22 02:56:46 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
2009-03-24 08:48:14 -06:00
|
|
|
else
|
2010-01-21 08:58:00 -07:00
|
|
|
{
|
2014-12-13 00:16:35 -07:00
|
|
|
if (ttHit)
|
2012-12-27 04:13:31 -07:00
|
|
|
{
|
2012-12-31 08:28:40 -07:00
|
|
|
// Never assume anything on values stored in TT
|
2015-01-09 04:35:44 -07:00
|
|
|
if ((ss->staticEval = bestValue = tte->eval()) == VALUE_NONE)
|
2014-06-06 01:35:34 -06:00
|
|
|
ss->staticEval = bestValue = evaluate(pos);
|
2013-10-07 01:10:48 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Can ttValue be used as a better position evaluation?
|
2017-07-27 03:14:18 -06:00
|
|
|
if ( ttValue != VALUE_NONE
|
|
|
|
&& (tte->bound() & (ttValue > bestValue ? BOUND_LOWER : BOUND_UPPER)))
|
|
|
|
bestValue = ttValue;
|
2012-12-27 04:13:31 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
2012-12-01 10:06:29 -07:00
|
|
|
else
|
2014-06-06 03:12:05 -06:00
|
|
|
ss->staticEval = bestValue =
|
2015-10-23 23:27:24 -06:00
|
|
|
(ss-1)->currentMove != MOVE_NULL ? evaluate(pos)
|
|
|
|
: -(ss-1)->staticEval + 2 * Eval::Tempo;
|
2010-01-21 08:58:00 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-06-03 11:29:48 -06:00
|
|
|
// Stand pat. Return immediately if static value is at least beta
|
|
|
|
if (bestValue >= beta)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2014-12-13 00:16:35 -07:00
|
|
|
if (!ttHit)
|
|
|
|
tte->save(pos.key(), value_to_tt(bestValue, ss->ply), BOUND_LOWER,
|
2014-12-13 01:27:39 -07:00
|
|
|
DEPTH_NONE, MOVE_NONE, ss->staticEval, TT.generation());
|
2010-06-04 01:46:38 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2010-06-03 11:29:48 -06:00
|
|
|
return bestValue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2009-03-27 08:30:45 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2010-06-03 11:29:48 -06:00
|
|
|
if (PvNode && bestValue > alpha)
|
|
|
|
alpha = bestValue;
|
2008-09-07 00:31:30 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2014-04-27 02:13:59 -06:00
|
|
|
futilityBase = bestValue + 128;
|
2010-06-03 11:29:48 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
2010-01-19 07:24:26 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
// Initialize a MovePicker object for the current position, and prepare
|
2010-01-19 07:24:26 -07:00
|
|
|
// to search the moves. Because the depth is <= 0 here, only captures,
|
2010-12-18 02:27:24 -07:00
|
|
|
// queen promotions and checks (only if depth >= DEPTH_QS_CHECKS) will
|
|
|
|
// be generated.
|
2017-11-03 05:37:11 -06:00
|
|
|
MovePicker mp(pos, ttMove, depth, &pos.this_thread()->mainHistory, &pos.this_thread()->captureHistory, to_sq((ss-1)->currentMove));
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2010-03-24 03:15:00 -06:00
|
|
|
// Loop through the moves until no moves remain or a beta cutoff occurs
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
while ((move = mp.next_move()) != MOVE_NONE)
|
2008-09-07 00:31:30 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2011-10-03 02:56:49 -06:00
|
|
|
assert(is_ok(move));
|
2008-09-07 00:31:30 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-07-03 02:35:44 -06:00
|
|
|
givesCheck = type_of(move) == NORMAL && !pos.discovered_check_candidates()
|
2016-08-27 02:05:42 -06:00
|
|
|
? pos.check_squares(type_of(pos.piece_on(from_sq(move)))) & to_sq(move)
|
2016-07-03 02:35:44 -06:00
|
|
|
: pos.gives_check(move);
|
2010-01-08 03:45:46 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2017-05-21 19:25:20 -06:00
|
|
|
moveCount++;
|
|
|
|
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
// Futility pruning
|
2015-01-14 13:18:41 -07:00
|
|
|
if ( !InCheck
|
2011-04-29 08:26:48 -06:00
|
|
|
&& !givesCheck
|
2013-08-24 02:05:48 -06:00
|
|
|
&& futilityBase > -VALUE_KNOWN_WIN
|
2013-12-03 14:58:39 -07:00
|
|
|
&& !pos.advanced_pawn_push(move))
|
2008-09-07 00:31:30 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2013-12-04 08:49:01 -07:00
|
|
|
assert(type_of(move) != ENPASSANT); // Due to !pos.advanced_pawn_push
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
futilityValue = futilityBase + PieceValue[EG][pos.piece_on(to_sq(move))];
|
2008-09-07 00:31:30 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-14 13:18:41 -07:00
|
|
|
if (futilityValue <= alpha)
|
2008-09-07 00:31:30 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
2012-11-26 08:13:36 -07:00
|
|
|
bestValue = std::max(bestValue, futilityValue);
|
2008-09-07 00:31:30 -06:00
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2011-02-22 15:23:45 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2016-10-06 11:55:10 -06:00
|
|
|
if (futilityBase <= alpha && !pos.see_ge(move, VALUE_ZERO + 1))
|
2012-11-26 08:13:36 -07:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
bestValue = std::max(bestValue, futilityBase);
|
2011-02-22 15:23:45 -07:00
|
|
|
continue;
|
2012-11-26 08:13:36 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2013-12-02 11:04:09 -07:00
|
|
|
// Detect non-capture evasions that are candidates to be pruned
|
2013-07-13 05:27:22 -06:00
|
|
|
evasionPrunable = InCheck
|
2017-05-21 19:25:20 -06:00
|
|
|
&& (depth != DEPTH_ZERO || moveCount > 2)
|
2012-04-28 04:08:10 -06:00
|
|
|
&& bestValue > VALUE_MATED_IN_MAX_PLY
|
2015-04-03 18:00:15 -06:00
|
|
|
&& !pos.capture(move);
|
2010-01-20 03:40:33 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Don't search moves with negative SEE values
|
2015-01-14 13:18:41 -07:00
|
|
|
if ( (!InCheck || evasionPrunable)
|
2012-06-24 03:08:16 -06:00
|
|
|
&& type_of(move) != PROMOTION
|
2017-05-09 05:50:05 -06:00
|
|
|
&& !pos.see_ge(move))
|
2008-09-07 00:31:30 -06:00
|
|
|
continue;
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-21 14:44:05 -06:00
|
|
|
// Speculative prefetch as early as possible
|
|
|
|
prefetch(TT.first_entry(pos.key_after(move)));
|
|
|
|
|
2013-12-02 11:04:09 -07:00
|
|
|
// Check for legality just before making the move
|
2016-07-03 02:35:44 -06:00
|
|
|
if (!pos.legal(move))
|
2017-05-21 19:25:20 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
moveCount--;
|
2011-05-23 07:14:47 -06:00
|
|
|
continue;
|
2017-05-21 19:25:20 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
2011-05-23 07:14:47 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2010-06-03 11:29:48 -06:00
|
|
|
ss->currentMove = move;
|
|
|
|
|
2009-11-05 03:11:02 -07:00
|
|
|
// Make and search the move
|
Compute checkers from scratch
This micro-optimization only complicates the code and provides no benefit.
Removing it is even a speedup on my machine (i7-3770k, linux, gcc 4.9.1):
stat test master diff
mean 2,403,118 2,390,904 12,214
stdev 12,043 10,620 3,677
speedup 0.51%
P(speedup>0) 100.0%
No functional change.
2015-02-15 00:49:20 -07:00
|
|
|
pos.do_move(move, st, givesCheck);
|
2012-11-01 07:49:54 -06:00
|
|
|
value = givesCheck ? -qsearch<NT, true>(pos, ss+1, -beta, -alpha, depth - ONE_PLY)
|
|
|
|
: -qsearch<NT, false>(pos, ss+1, -beta, -alpha, depth - ONE_PLY);
|
2009-02-22 09:49:52 -07:00
|
|
|
pos.undo_move(move);
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
assert(value > -VALUE_INFINITE && value < VALUE_INFINITE);
|
|
|
|
|
2016-01-16 14:34:29 -07:00
|
|
|
// Check for a new best move
|
2008-09-07 00:31:30 -06:00
|
|
|
if (value > bestValue)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
bestValue = value;
|
2011-08-07 03:29:47 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-07 01:34:04 -06:00
|
|
|
if (value > alpha)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2014-11-21 01:10:52 -07:00
|
|
|
if (PvNode) // Update pv even in fail-high case
|
2014-11-18 03:57:57 -07:00
|
|
|
update_pv(ss->pv, move, (ss+1)->pv);
|
2014-11-12 14:13:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-23 23:27:24 -06:00
|
|
|
if (PvNode && value < beta) // Update alpha here!
|
2012-10-07 01:34:04 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
alpha = value;
|
|
|
|
bestMove = move;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else // Fail high
|
|
|
|
{
|
2014-12-13 00:16:35 -07:00
|
|
|
tte->save(posKey, value_to_tt(value, ss->ply), BOUND_LOWER,
|
2014-12-13 01:27:39 -07:00
|
|
|
ttDepth, move, ss->staticEval, TT.generation());
|
2012-12-27 04:13:31 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-07 01:34:04 -06:00
|
|
|
return value;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2008-09-07 00:31:30 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2010-01-08 03:45:46 -07:00
|
|
|
// All legal moves have been searched. A special case: If we're in check
|
2009-06-11 07:57:42 -06:00
|
|
|
// and no legal moves were found, it is checkmate.
|
2012-11-01 07:49:54 -06:00
|
|
|
if (InCheck && bestValue == -VALUE_INFINITE)
|
2011-12-28 05:22:09 -07:00
|
|
|
return mated_in(ss->ply); // Plies to mate from the root
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2014-12-13 00:16:35 -07:00
|
|
|
tte->save(posKey, value_to_tt(bestValue, ss->ply),
|
|
|
|
PvNode && bestValue > oldAlpha ? BOUND_EXACT : BOUND_UPPER,
|
2014-12-13 01:27:39 -07:00
|
|
|
ttDepth, bestMove, ss->staticEval, TT.generation());
|
2009-09-18 02:32:57 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2010-01-08 03:45:46 -07:00
|
|
|
assert(bestValue > -VALUE_INFINITE && bestValue < VALUE_INFINITE);
|
2009-04-18 07:03:33 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
return bestValue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2010-12-14 06:49:06 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-10-27 06:25:31 -06:00
|
|
|
// value_to_tt() adjusts a mate score from "plies to mate from the root" to
|
|
|
|
// "plies to mate from the current position". Non-mate scores are unchanged.
|
2013-12-02 11:04:09 -07:00
|
|
|
// The function is called before storing a value in the transposition table.
|
2012-10-27 06:25:31 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value value_to_tt(Value v, int ply) {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
assert(v != VALUE_NONE);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return v >= VALUE_MATE_IN_MAX_PLY ? v + ply
|
|
|
|
: v <= VALUE_MATED_IN_MAX_PLY ? v - ply : v;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// value_from_tt() is the inverse of value_to_tt(): It adjusts a mate score
|
2013-12-02 11:04:09 -07:00
|
|
|
// from the transposition table (which refers to the plies to mate/be mated
|
2012-10-27 06:25:31 -06:00
|
|
|
// from current position) to "plies to mate/be mated from the root".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value value_from_tt(Value v, int ply) {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return v == VALUE_NONE ? VALUE_NONE
|
|
|
|
: v >= VALUE_MATE_IN_MAX_PLY ? v - ply
|
|
|
|
: v <= VALUE_MATED_IN_MAX_PLY ? v + ply : v;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-21 01:10:52 -07:00
|
|
|
// update_pv() adds current move and appends child pv[]
|
2014-11-18 03:57:57 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-11-21 01:10:52 -07:00
|
|
|
void update_pv(Move* pv, Move move, Move* childPv) {
|
2014-11-18 03:57:57 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-11-21 01:10:52 -07:00
|
|
|
for (*pv++ = move; childPv && *childPv != MOVE_NONE; )
|
|
|
|
*pv++ = *childPv++;
|
2014-11-18 03:57:57 -07:00
|
|
|
*pv = MOVE_NONE;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2014-01-05 06:08:26 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-30 09:20:00 -06:00
|
|
|
// update_continuation_histories() updates histories of the move pairs formed
|
|
|
|
// by moves at ply -1, -2, and -4 with current move.
|
2014-01-05 06:08:26 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-30 09:20:00 -06:00
|
|
|
void update_continuation_histories(Stack* ss, Piece pc, Square to, int bonus) {
|
2016-08-23 07:57:56 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2017-03-08 19:35:23 -07:00
|
|
|
for (int i : {1, 2, 4})
|
2017-03-14 22:00:03 -06:00
|
|
|
if (is_ok((ss-i)->currentMove))
|
2017-06-30 09:20:00 -06:00
|
|
|
(ss-i)->contHistory->update(pc, to, bonus);
|
2016-08-24 08:52:05 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
2016-08-23 07:57:56 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-24 08:52:05 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2017-11-03 05:37:11 -06:00
|
|
|
// update_capture_stats() updates move sorting heuristics when a new capture best move is found
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void update_capture_stats(const Position& pos, Move move,
|
|
|
|
Move* captures, int captureCnt, int bonus) {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CapturePieceToHistory& captureHistory = pos.this_thread()->captureHistory;
|
|
|
|
Piece moved_piece = pos.moved_piece(move);
|
|
|
|
PieceType captured = type_of(pos.piece_on(to_sq(move)));
|
|
|
|
captureHistory.update(moved_piece,to_sq(move), captured, bonus);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Decrease all the other played capture moves
|
|
|
|
for (int i = 0; i < captureCnt; ++i)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
moved_piece = pos.moved_piece(captures[i]);
|
|
|
|
captured = type_of(pos.piece_on(to_sq(captures[i])));
|
|
|
|
captureHistory.update(moved_piece, to_sq(captures[i]), captured, -bonus);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-01-09 03:57:34 -07:00
|
|
|
// update_stats() updates move sorting heuristics when a new quiet best move is found
|
2016-08-24 08:52:05 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void update_stats(const Position& pos, Stack* ss, Move move,
|
2017-04-23 08:57:48 -06:00
|
|
|
Move* quiets, int quietsCnt, int bonus) {
|
2016-08-23 07:57:56 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2014-01-05 06:08:26 -07:00
|
|
|
if (ss->killers[0] != move)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
ss->killers[1] = ss->killers[0];
|
|
|
|
ss->killers[0] = move;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2016-08-12 11:55:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-23 07:57:56 -06:00
|
|
|
Color c = pos.side_to_move();
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
Thread* thisThread = pos.this_thread();
|
2017-06-30 09:20:00 -06:00
|
|
|
thisThread->mainHistory.update(c, move, bonus);
|
|
|
|
update_continuation_histories(ss, pos.moved_piece(move), to_sq(move), bonus);
|
2015-01-31 02:43:47 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2017-03-08 19:35:23 -07:00
|
|
|
if (is_ok((ss-1)->currentMove))
|
2014-01-05 06:08:26 -07:00
|
|
|
{
|
2016-08-24 08:52:05 -06:00
|
|
|
Square prevSq = to_sq((ss-1)->currentMove);
|
2017-06-30 09:20:00 -06:00
|
|
|
thisThread->counterMoves[pos.piece_on(prevSq)][prevSq] = move;
|
2014-01-05 06:08:26 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-03-15 03:05:57 -06:00
|
|
|
// Decrease all the other played quiet moves
|
|
|
|
for (int i = 0; i < quietsCnt; ++i)
|
2014-01-05 06:08:26 -07:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-06-30 09:20:00 -06:00
|
|
|
thisThread->mainHistory.update(c, quiets[i], -bonus);
|
|
|
|
update_continuation_histories(ss, pos.moved_piece(quiets[i]), to_sq(quiets[i]), -bonus);
|
2014-01-05 06:08:26 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-10-20 11:17:49 -06:00
|
|
|
// Is the PV leading to a draw position? Assumes all pv moves are legal
|
|
|
|
bool pv_is_draw(Position& pos) {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
StateInfo st[MAX_PLY];
|
|
|
|
auto& pv = pos.this_thread()->rootMoves[0].pv;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for (size_t i = 0; i < pv.size(); ++i)
|
|
|
|
pos.do_move(pv[i], st[i]);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool isDraw = pos.is_draw(pv.size());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for (size_t i = pv.size(); i > 0; --i)
|
|
|
|
pos.undo_move(pv[i-1]);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return isDraw;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-01-25 03:07:43 -07:00
|
|
|
// When playing with strength handicap, choose best move among a set of RootMoves
|
|
|
|
// using a statistical rule dependent on 'level'. Idea by Heinz van Saanen.
|
2010-07-15 03:00:20 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-25 03:07:43 -07:00
|
|
|
Move Skill::pick_best(size_t multiPV) {
|
2010-07-15 03:00:20 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-11 08:45:36 -06:00
|
|
|
const RootMoves& rootMoves = Threads.main()->rootMoves;
|
2015-10-25 01:30:07 -06:00
|
|
|
static PRNG rng(now()); // PRNG sequence should be non-deterministic
|
2010-07-15 03:00:20 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2012-07-15 01:14:25 -06:00
|
|
|
// RootMoves are already sorted by score in descending order
|
2015-10-25 01:30:07 -06:00
|
|
|
Value topScore = rootMoves[0].score;
|
|
|
|
int delta = std::min(topScore - rootMoves[multiPV - 1].score, PawnValueMg);
|
2012-10-24 04:05:20 -06:00
|
|
|
int weakness = 120 - 2 * level;
|
2014-12-07 16:53:33 -07:00
|
|
|
int maxScore = -VALUE_INFINITE;
|
2012-07-15 01:14:25 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-25 01:30:07 -06:00
|
|
|
// Choose best move. For each move score we add two terms, both dependent on
|
2016-01-16 01:03:56 -07:00
|
|
|
// weakness. One is deterministic and bigger for weaker levels, and one is
|
2016-01-16 14:34:29 -07:00
|
|
|
// random. Then we choose the move with the resulting highest score.
|
2015-01-25 03:07:43 -07:00
|
|
|
for (size_t i = 0; i < multiPV; ++i)
|
2012-07-15 01:14:25 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// This is our magic formula
|
2015-10-25 01:30:07 -06:00
|
|
|
int push = ( weakness * int(topScore - rootMoves[i].score)
|
|
|
|
+ delta * (rng.rand<unsigned>() % weakness)) / 128;
|
2012-07-15 01:14:25 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2017-10-10 23:49:58 -06:00
|
|
|
if (rootMoves[i].score + push >= maxScore)
|
2012-07-15 01:14:25 -06:00
|
|
|
{
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
maxScore = rootMoves[i].score + push;
|
|
|
|
best = rootMoves[i].pv[0];
|
2012-07-15 01:14:25 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2015-10-25 01:30:07 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2012-07-15 01:14:25 -06:00
|
|
|
return best;
|
2010-07-15 03:00:20 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-06-23 23:15:46 -06:00
|
|
|
} // namespace
|
Get rid of timer thread
Unfortunately std::condition_variable::wait_for()
is not accurate in general case and the timer thread
can wake up also after tens or even hundreds of
millisecs after time has elapsded. CPU load, process
priorities, number of concurrent threads, even from
other processes, will have effect upon it.
Even official documentation says: "This function may
block for longer than timeout_duration due to scheduling
or resource contention delays."
So retire timer and use a polling scheme based on a
local thread counter that counts search() calls and
a small trick to keep polling frequency constant,
independently from the number of threads.
Tested for no regression at very fast TC 2+0.05 th 7:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 32969 W: 6720 L: 6620 D: 19629
TC 2+0.05 th 1:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 7765 W: 1917 L: 1765 D: 4083
And at STC TC, both single thread
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 15587 W: 3036 L: 2905 D: 9646
And with 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 8149 W: 1367 L: 1227 D: 5555
bench: 8639247
2015-11-03 03:15:14 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// check_time() is used to print debug info and, more importantly, to detect
|
|
|
|
// when we are out of available time and thus stop the search.
|
|
|
|
|
2017-06-23 23:15:46 -06:00
|
|
|
void MainThread::check_time() {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (--callsCnt > 0)
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// At low node count increase the checking rate to about 0.1% of nodes
|
|
|
|
// otherwise use a default value.
|
|
|
|
callsCnt = Limits.nodes ? std::min(4096, int(Limits.nodes / 1024)) : 4096;
|
Get rid of timer thread
Unfortunately std::condition_variable::wait_for()
is not accurate in general case and the timer thread
can wake up also after tens or even hundreds of
millisecs after time has elapsded. CPU load, process
priorities, number of concurrent threads, even from
other processes, will have effect upon it.
Even official documentation says: "This function may
block for longer than timeout_duration due to scheduling
or resource contention delays."
So retire timer and use a polling scheme based on a
local thread counter that counts search() calls and
a small trick to keep polling frequency constant,
independently from the number of threads.
Tested for no regression at very fast TC 2+0.05 th 7:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 32969 W: 6720 L: 6620 D: 19629
TC 2+0.05 th 1:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 7765 W: 1917 L: 1765 D: 4083
And at STC TC, both single thread
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 15587 W: 3036 L: 2905 D: 9646
And with 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 8149 W: 1367 L: 1227 D: 5555
bench: 8639247
2015-11-03 03:15:14 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-23 23:15:46 -06:00
|
|
|
static TimePoint lastInfoTime = now();
|
Get rid of timer thread
Unfortunately std::condition_variable::wait_for()
is not accurate in general case and the timer thread
can wake up also after tens or even hundreds of
millisecs after time has elapsded. CPU load, process
priorities, number of concurrent threads, even from
other processes, will have effect upon it.
Even official documentation says: "This function may
block for longer than timeout_duration due to scheduling
or resource contention delays."
So retire timer and use a polling scheme based on a
local thread counter that counts search() calls and
a small trick to keep polling frequency constant,
independently from the number of threads.
Tested for no regression at very fast TC 2+0.05 th 7:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 32969 W: 6720 L: 6620 D: 19629
TC 2+0.05 th 1:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 7765 W: 1917 L: 1765 D: 4083
And at STC TC, both single thread
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 15587 W: 3036 L: 2905 D: 9646
And with 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 8149 W: 1367 L: 1227 D: 5555
bench: 8639247
2015-11-03 03:15:14 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
int elapsed = Time.elapsed();
|
|
|
|
TimePoint tick = Limits.startTime + elapsed;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (tick - lastInfoTime >= 1000)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
lastInfoTime = tick;
|
|
|
|
dbg_print();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// An engine may not stop pondering until told so by the GUI
|
2017-08-10 13:32:50 -06:00
|
|
|
if (Threads.ponder)
|
Get rid of timer thread
Unfortunately std::condition_variable::wait_for()
is not accurate in general case and the timer thread
can wake up also after tens or even hundreds of
millisecs after time has elapsded. CPU load, process
priorities, number of concurrent threads, even from
other processes, will have effect upon it.
Even official documentation says: "This function may
block for longer than timeout_duration due to scheduling
or resource contention delays."
So retire timer and use a polling scheme based on a
local thread counter that counts search() calls and
a small trick to keep polling frequency constant,
independently from the number of threads.
Tested for no regression at very fast TC 2+0.05 th 7:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 32969 W: 6720 L: 6620 D: 19629
TC 2+0.05 th 1:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 7765 W: 1917 L: 1765 D: 4083
And at STC TC, both single thread
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 15587 W: 3036 L: 2905 D: 9646
And with 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 8149 W: 1367 L: 1227 D: 5555
bench: 8639247
2015-11-03 03:15:14 -07:00
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
2017-08-18 01:38:27 -06:00
|
|
|
if ( (Limits.use_time_management() && elapsed > Time.maximum())
|
2015-12-09 00:07:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|| (Limits.movetime && elapsed >= Limits.movetime)
|
2016-10-20 13:16:09 -06:00
|
|
|
|| (Limits.nodes && Threads.nodes_searched() >= (uint64_t)Limits.nodes))
|
2017-07-13 17:07:19 -06:00
|
|
|
Threads.stop = true;
|
Get rid of timer thread
Unfortunately std::condition_variable::wait_for()
is not accurate in general case and the timer thread
can wake up also after tens or even hundreds of
millisecs after time has elapsded. CPU load, process
priorities, number of concurrent threads, even from
other processes, will have effect upon it.
Even official documentation says: "This function may
block for longer than timeout_duration due to scheduling
or resource contention delays."
So retire timer and use a polling scheme based on a
local thread counter that counts search() calls and
a small trick to keep polling frequency constant,
independently from the number of threads.
Tested for no regression at very fast TC 2+0.05 th 7:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 32969 W: 6720 L: 6620 D: 19629
TC 2+0.05 th 1:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 7765 W: 1917 L: 1765 D: 4083
And at STC TC, both single thread
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 15587 W: 3036 L: 2905 D: 9646
And with 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 8149 W: 1367 L: 1227 D: 5555
bench: 8639247
2015-11-03 03:15:14 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2011-01-01 06:13:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-31 03:54:25 -07:00
|
|
|
/// UCI::pv() formats PV information according to the UCI protocol. UCI requires
|
|
|
|
/// that all (if any) unsearched PV lines are sent using a previous search score.
|
2011-01-01 06:13:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-31 03:54:25 -07:00
|
|
|
string UCI::pv(const Position& pos, Depth depth, Value alpha, Value beta) {
|
2011-06-22 00:03:28 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-31 03:54:25 -07:00
|
|
|
std::stringstream ss;
|
2015-04-02 01:07:17 -06:00
|
|
|
int elapsed = Time.elapsed() + 1;
|
2016-04-11 08:45:36 -06:00
|
|
|
const RootMoves& rootMoves = pos.this_thread()->rootMoves;
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
size_t PVIdx = pos.this_thread()->PVIdx;
|
|
|
|
size_t multiPV = std::min((size_t)Options["MultiPV"], rootMoves.size());
|
2016-10-20 13:16:09 -06:00
|
|
|
uint64_t nodesSearched = Threads.nodes_searched();
|
|
|
|
uint64_t tbHits = Threads.tb_hits() + (TB::RootInTB ? rootMoves.size() : 0);
|
2011-06-22 00:03:28 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-31 03:54:25 -07:00
|
|
|
for (size_t i = 0; i < multiPV; ++i)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2017-05-03 20:46:40 -06:00
|
|
|
bool updated = (i <= PVIdx && rootMoves[i].score != -VALUE_INFINITE);
|
2011-12-14 01:21:00 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-31 03:54:25 -07:00
|
|
|
if (depth == ONE_PLY && !updated)
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
2011-12-14 01:21:00 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-31 03:54:25 -07:00
|
|
|
Depth d = updated ? depth : depth - ONE_PLY;
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
Value v = updated ? rootMoves[i].score : rootMoves[i].previousScore;
|
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-31 03:54:25 -07:00
|
|
|
bool tb = TB::RootInTB && abs(v) < VALUE_MATE - MAX_PLY;
|
|
|
|
v = tb ? TB::Score : v;
|
2012-07-14 06:19:16 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-31 03:54:25 -07:00
|
|
|
if (ss.rdbuf()->in_avail()) // Not at first line
|
|
|
|
ss << "\n";
|
2015-01-03 02:51:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-31 03:54:25 -07:00
|
|
|
ss << "info"
|
|
|
|
<< " depth " << d / ONE_PLY
|
2017-07-13 17:30:03 -06:00
|
|
|
<< " seldepth " << rootMoves[i].selDepth
|
2015-01-31 03:54:25 -07:00
|
|
|
<< " multipv " << i + 1
|
|
|
|
<< " score " << UCI::value(v);
|
2015-01-03 02:51:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-31 03:54:25 -07:00
|
|
|
if (!tb && i == PVIdx)
|
|
|
|
ss << (v >= beta ? " lowerbound" : v <= alpha ? " upperbound" : "");
|
2011-12-14 01:21:00 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2016-10-20 13:16:09 -06:00
|
|
|
ss << " nodes " << nodesSearched
|
|
|
|
<< " nps " << nodesSearched * 1000 / elapsed;
|
2015-01-25 00:57:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-31 05:04:15 -07:00
|
|
|
if (elapsed > 1000) // Earlier makes little sense
|
2015-01-31 05:22:06 -07:00
|
|
|
ss << " hashfull " << TT.hashfull();
|
2011-12-14 01:21:00 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2016-10-20 13:16:09 -06:00
|
|
|
ss << " tbhits " << tbHits
|
2015-01-31 03:54:25 -07:00
|
|
|
<< " time " << elapsed
|
|
|
|
<< " pv";
|
2012-07-14 06:19:16 -06:00
|
|
|
|
Lazy SMP
Start all threads searching on root position and
use only the shared TT table as synching scheme.
It seems this scheme scales better than YBWC for
high number of threads.
Verified for nor regression at STC 3 threads
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40232 W: 6908 L: 7130 D: 26194
Verified for nor regression at LTC 3 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28186 W: 3908 L: 3798 D: 20480
Verified for nor regression at STC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 3607 W: 674 L: 526 D: 2407
Verified for nor regression at LTC 7 threads
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 4235 W: 671 L: 528 D: 3036
Tested with fixed games at LTC with 20 threads
ELO: 44.75 +-7.6 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2069 W: 407 L: 142 D: 1520
Tested with fixed games at XLTC (120secs) with 20 threads
ELO: 28.01 +-6.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 2275 W: 349 L: 166 D: 1760
Original patch of mbootsector, with additional work
from Ivan Ivec (log formula), Joerg Oster (id loop
simplification) and Marco Costalba (assorted formatting
and rework).
Bench: 8116244
2015-10-06 00:15:17 -06:00
|
|
|
for (Move m : rootMoves[i].pv)
|
2015-01-31 03:54:25 -07:00
|
|
|
ss << " " << UCI::move(m, pos.is_chess960());
|
2011-06-22 00:03:28 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-01-31 03:54:25 -07:00
|
|
|
return ss.str();
|
|
|
|
}
|
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2010-12-29 03:00:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-25 01:30:07 -06:00
|
|
|
/// RootMove::extract_ponder_from_tt() is called in case we have no ponder move
|
2016-01-16 14:34:29 -07:00
|
|
|
/// before exiting the search, for instance, in case we stop the search during a
|
2015-10-25 01:30:07 -06:00
|
|
|
/// fail high at root. We try hard to have a ponder move to return to the GUI,
|
|
|
|
/// otherwise in case of 'ponder on' we have nothing to think on.
|
2015-01-20 01:13:30 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2016-09-23 11:28:34 -06:00
|
|
|
bool RootMove::extract_ponder_from_tt(Position& pos) {
|
|
|
|
|
2015-01-20 01:13:30 -07:00
|
|
|
StateInfo st;
|
2015-01-31 04:31:00 -07:00
|
|
|
bool ttHit;
|
2015-01-20 01:13:30 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
assert(pv.size() == 1);
|
|
|
|
|
2016-09-23 23:30:37 -06:00
|
|
|
if (!pv[0])
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
|
2016-11-11 06:02:28 -07:00
|
|
|
pos.do_move(pv[0], st);
|
2015-01-31 04:31:00 -07:00
|
|
|
TTEntry* tte = TT.probe(pos.key(), ttHit);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (ttHit)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
Move m = tte->move(); // Local copy to be SMP safe
|
|
|
|
if (MoveList<LEGAL>(pos).contains(m))
|
2016-07-09 13:01:42 -06:00
|
|
|
pv.push_back(m);
|
2015-01-31 04:31:00 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-07-09 13:01:42 -06:00
|
|
|
pos.undo_move(pv[0]);
|
|
|
|
return pv.size() > 1;
|
2015-01-20 01:13:30 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
2016-06-03 23:53:29 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void Tablebases::filter_root_moves(Position& pos, Search::RootMoves& rootMoves) {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RootInTB = false;
|
|
|
|
UseRule50 = Options["Syzygy50MoveRule"];
|
|
|
|
ProbeDepth = Options["SyzygyProbeDepth"] * ONE_PLY;
|
|
|
|
Cardinality = Options["SyzygyProbeLimit"];
|
|
|
|
|
2017-10-18 02:25:12 -06:00
|
|
|
// Don't filter any moves if the user requested analysis on multiple
|
|
|
|
if (Options["MultiPV"] != 1)
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
2016-06-03 23:53:29 -06:00
|
|
|
// Skip TB probing when no TB found: !TBLargest -> !TB::Cardinality
|
|
|
|
if (Cardinality > MaxCardinality)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
Cardinality = MaxCardinality;
|
|
|
|
ProbeDepth = DEPTH_ZERO;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (Cardinality < popcount(pos.pieces()) || pos.can_castle(ANY_CASTLING))
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// If the current root position is in the tablebases, then RootMoves
|
|
|
|
// contains only moves that preserve the draw or the win.
|
|
|
|
RootInTB = root_probe(pos, rootMoves, TB::Score);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (RootInTB)
|
|
|
|
Cardinality = 0; // Do not probe tablebases during the search
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
else // If DTZ tables are missing, use WDL tables as a fallback
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// Filter out moves that do not preserve the draw or the win.
|
|
|
|
RootInTB = root_probe_wdl(pos, rootMoves, TB::Score);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Only probe during search if winning
|
2016-09-03 00:19:17 -06:00
|
|
|
if (RootInTB && TB::Score <= VALUE_DRAW)
|
2016-06-03 23:53:29 -06:00
|
|
|
Cardinality = 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-10-20 13:16:09 -06:00
|
|
|
if (RootInTB && !UseRule50)
|
|
|
|
TB::Score = TB::Score > VALUE_DRAW ? VALUE_MATE - MAX_PLY - 1
|
|
|
|
: TB::Score < VALUE_DRAW ? -VALUE_MATE + MAX_PLY + 1
|
|
|
|
: VALUE_DRAW;
|
2016-06-03 23:53:29 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|