1
0
Fork 0
stockfish/src/search.cpp

1661 lines
58 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
/*
Stockfish, a UCI chess playing engine derived from Glaurung 2.1
Copyright (C) 2004-2008 Tord Romstad (Glaurung author)
Copyright (C) 2008-2015 Marco Costalba, Joona Kiiski, Tord Romstad
Copyright (C) 2015-2018 Marco Costalba, Joona Kiiski, Gary Linscott, Tord Romstad
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -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.
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.
2008-08-31 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/>.
*/
#include <algorithm>
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
#include <cassert>
#include <cmath>
#include <cstring> // For std::memset
#include <iostream>
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
#include <sstream>
#include "evaluate.h"
#include "misc.h"
#include "movegen.h"
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
#include "movepick.h"
#include "position.h"
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
#include "search.h"
#include "timeman.h"
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
#include "thread.h"
#include "tt.h"
#include "uci.h"
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
#include "syzygy/tbprobe.h"
namespace Search {
LimitsType Limits;
}
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
namespace Tablebases {
int Cardinality;
bool RootInTB;
bool UseRule50;
Depth ProbeDepth;
Value Score;
}
namespace TB = Tablebases;
using std::string;
using Eval::evaluate;
using namespace Search;
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
namespace {
// Different node types, used as a template parameter
enum NodeType { NonPV, PV };
// 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 };
// Razor and futility margins
const int RazorMargin1 = 590;
const int RazorMargin2 = 604;
Value futility_margin(Depth d, bool improving) {
return Value((175 - 50 * improving) * d / ONE_PLY);
}
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
// Futility and reductions lookup tables, initialized at startup
int FutilityMoveCounts[2][16]; // [improving][depth]
int Reductions[2][2][64][64]; // [pv][improving][depth][moveNumber]
template <bool PvNode> Depth reduction(bool i, Depth d, int mn) {
return Reductions[PvNode][i][std::min(d / ONE_PLY, 63)][std::min(mn, 63)] * ONE_PLY;
}
// History and stats update bonus, based on depth
int stat_bonus(Depth depth) {
int d = depth / ONE_PLY;
return d > 17 ? 0 : d * d + 2 * d - 2;
}
// Skill structure is used to implement strength limit
struct Skill {
explicit Skill(int l) : level(l) {}
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);
int level;
Move best = MOVE_NONE;
};
template <NodeType NT>
Value search(Position& pos, Stack* ss, Value alpha, Value beta, Depth depth, bool cutNode, bool skipEarlyPruning);
template <NodeType NT>
Value qsearch(Position& pos, Stack* ss, Value alpha, Value beta, Depth depth = DEPTH_ZERO);
Value value_to_tt(Value v, int ply);
Value value_from_tt(Value v, int ply);
void update_pv(Move* pv, Move move, Move* childPv);
void update_continuation_histories(Stack* ss, Piece pc, Square to, int bonus);
void update_quiet_stats(const Position& pos, Stack* ss, Move move, Move* quiets, int quietsCnt, int bonus);
void update_capture_stats(const Position& pos, Move move, Move* captures, int captureCnt, int bonus);
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
inline bool gives_check(const Position& pos, Move move) {
Color us = pos.side_to_move();
return type_of(move) == NORMAL && !(pos.blockers_for_king(~us) & pos.pieces(us))
? pos.check_squares(type_of(pos.moved_piece(move))) & to_sq(move)
: pos.gives_check(move);
}
// 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;
}
} // namespace
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
/// Search::init() is called at startup to initialize various lookup tables
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
void Search::init() {
for (int imp = 0; imp <= 1; ++imp)
for (int d = 1; d < 64; ++d)
for (int mc = 1; mc < 64; ++mc)
{
double r = log(d) * log(mc) / 1.95;
Reductions[NonPV][imp][d][mc] = int(std::round(r));
Reductions[PV][imp][d][mc] = std::max(Reductions[NonPV][imp][d][mc] - 1, 0);
// Increase reduction for non-PV nodes when eval is not improving
if (!imp && Reductions[NonPV][imp][d][mc] >= 2)
Reductions[NonPV][imp][d][mc]++;
}
for (int d = 0; d < 16; ++d)
{
FutilityMoveCounts[0][d] = int(2.4 + 0.74 * pow(d, 1.78));
FutilityMoveCounts[1][d] = int(5.0 + 1.00 * pow(d, 2.00));
}
}
/// Search::clear() resets search state to its initial value
void Search::clear() {
Threads.main()->wait_for_search_finished();
Time.availableNodes = 0;
TT.clear();
Threads.clear();
}
/// MainThread::search() is called by the main thread when the program receives
/// the UCI 'go' command. It searches from the root position and outputs the "bestmove".
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
void MainThread::search() {
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
if (Limits.perft)
{
nodes = perft<true>(rootPos, Limits.perft * ONE_PLY);
sync_cout << "\nNodes searched: " << nodes << "\n" << sync_endl;
return;
}
Color us = rootPos.side_to_move();
Time.init(Limits, us, rootPos.game_ply());
TT.new_search();
if (rootMoves.empty())
{
rootMoves.emplace_back(MOVE_NONE);
sync_cout << "info depth 0 score "
<< UCI::value(rootPos.checkers() ? -VALUE_MATE : VALUE_DRAW)
<< sync_endl;
}
else
{
for (Thread* th : Threads)
if (th != this)
th->start_searching();
Thread::search(); // Let's start searching!
}
// When we reach the maximum depth, we can arrive here without a raise of
// Threads.stop. However, if we are pondering or in an infinite search,
// 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
// until the GUI sends one of those commands (which also raises Threads.stop).
Threads.stopOnPonderhit = true;
while (!Threads.stop && (Threads.ponder || Limits.infinite))
{} // Busy wait for a stop or a ponder reset
// Stop the threads if not already stopped (also raise the stop if
// "ponderhit" just reset Threads.ponder).
Threads.stop = true;
// Wait until all threads have finished
for (Thread* th : Threads)
if (th != this)
th->wait_for_search_finished();
// 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();
// Check if there are threads with a better score than main thread
Thread* bestThread = this;
if ( Options["MultiPV"] == 1
&& !Limits.depth
&& !Skill(Options["Skill Level"]).enabled()
&& rootMoves[0].pv[0] != MOVE_NONE)
{
for (Thread* th : Threads)
{
Depth depthDiff = th->completedDepth - bestThread->completedDepth;
Value scoreDiff = th->rootMoves[0].score - bestThread->rootMoves[0].score;
// 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))
bestThread = th;
}
}
previousScore = bestThread->rootMoves[0].score;
// Send again PV info if we have a new best thread
if (bestThread != this)
sync_cout << UCI::pv(bestThread->rootPos, bestThread->completedDepth, -VALUE_INFINITE, VALUE_INFINITE) << sync_endl;
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());
std::cout << sync_endl;
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -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
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)
Value bestValue, alpha, beta, delta;
Move lastBestMove = MOVE_NONE;
Depth lastBestMoveDepth = DEPTH_ZERO;
MainThread* mainThread = (this == Threads.main() ? Threads.main() : nullptr);
double timeReduction = 1.0;
Introduce dynamic contempt Make contempt dependent on the current score of the root position. The idea is that we now use a linear formula like the following to decide on the contempt to use during a search : contempt = x + y * eval where x is the base contempt set by the user in the "Contempt" UCI option, and y * eval is the dynamic part which adapts itself to the estimation of the evaluation of the root position returned by the search. In this patch, we use x = 18 centipawns by default, and the y * eval correction can go from -20 centipawns if the root eval is less than -2.0 pawns, up to +20 centipawns when the root eval is more than 2.0 pawns. To summarize, the new contempt goes from -0.02 to 0.38 pawns, depending if Stockfish is losing or winning, with an average value of 0.18 pawns by default. STC: LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00] Total: 110052 W: 24614 L: 23938 D: 61500 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a72e6020ebc590f2c86ea20 LTC: LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00] Total: 16470 W: 2896 L: 2705 D: 10869 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a76c5b90ebc5902971a9830 A second match at LTC was organised against the current master: ELO: 1.45 +-2.9 (95%) LOS: 84.0% Total: 19369 W: 3350 L: 3269 D: 12750 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7acf980ebc5902971a9a2e Finally, we checked that there is no apparent problem with multithreading, despite the fact that some threads might have a slightly different contempt level that the main thread. Match of this version against master, both using 5 threads, time control 30+0.3: ELO: 2.18 +-3.2 (95%) LOS: 90.8% Total: 14840 W: 2502 L: 2409 D: 9929 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7bf3e80ebc5902971a9aa2 Include suggestions from Marco Costalba, Aram Tumanian, Ronald de Man, etc. Bench: 5207156
2018-02-09 10:43:53 -07:00
Color us = rootPos.side_to_move();
std::memset(ss-4, 0, 7 * sizeof(Stack));
for (int i = 4; i > 0; i--)
(ss-i)->contHistory = this->contHistory[NO_PIECE][0].get(); // Use as sentinel
bestValue = delta = alpha = -VALUE_INFINITE;
beta = VALUE_INFINITE;
if (mainThread)
mainThread->bestMoveChanges = 0, mainThread->failedLow = false;
size_t multiPV = Options["MultiPV"];
Skill skill(Options["Skill Level"]);
// 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);
multiPV = std::min(multiPV, rootMoves.size());
int ct = Options["Contempt"] * PawnValueEg / 100; // From centipawns
Eval::Contempt = (us == WHITE ? make_score(ct, ct / 2)
: -make_score(ct, ct / 2));
Introduce dynamic contempt Make contempt dependent on the current score of the root position. The idea is that we now use a linear formula like the following to decide on the contempt to use during a search : contempt = x + y * eval where x is the base contempt set by the user in the "Contempt" UCI option, and y * eval is the dynamic part which adapts itself to the estimation of the evaluation of the root position returned by the search. In this patch, we use x = 18 centipawns by default, and the y * eval correction can go from -20 centipawns if the root eval is less than -2.0 pawns, up to +20 centipawns when the root eval is more than 2.0 pawns. To summarize, the new contempt goes from -0.02 to 0.38 pawns, depending if Stockfish is losing or winning, with an average value of 0.18 pawns by default. STC: LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00] Total: 110052 W: 24614 L: 23938 D: 61500 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a72e6020ebc590f2c86ea20 LTC: LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00] Total: 16470 W: 2896 L: 2705 D: 10869 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a76c5b90ebc5902971a9830 A second match at LTC was organised against the current master: ELO: 1.45 +-2.9 (95%) LOS: 84.0% Total: 19369 W: 3350 L: 3269 D: 12750 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7acf980ebc5902971a9a2e Finally, we checked that there is no apparent problem with multithreading, despite the fact that some threads might have a slightly different contempt level that the main thread. Match of this version against master, both using 5 threads, time control 30+0.3: ELO: 2.18 +-3.2 (95%) LOS: 90.8% Total: 14840 W: 2502 L: 2409 D: 9929 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7bf3e80ebc5902971a9aa2 Include suggestions from Marco Costalba, Aram Tumanian, Ronald de Man, etc. Bench: 5207156
2018-02-09 10:43:53 -07:00
// Iterative deepening loop until requested to stop or the target depth is reached
while ( (rootDepth += ONE_PLY) < DEPTH_MAX
&& !Threads.stop
&& !(Limits.depth && mainThread && rootDepth / ONE_PLY > Limits.depth))
{
// Distribute search depths across the helper threads
if (idx > 0)
{
int i = (idx - 1) % 20;
if (((rootDepth / ONE_PLY + rootPos.game_ply() + SkipPhase[i]) / SkipSize[i]) % 2)
continue; // Retry with an incremented rootDepth
}
// Age out PV variability metric
if (mainThread)
Tweak time management Using a SPSA tuning session to optimize the time management parameters. With SPSA tuning it is not always possible to say where improvements came from. Maybe some variables changed randomly or because result was not sensitive enough to them. So my explanation of changes will not be necessarily correct, but here it is. • When decrease of thinking time was added by Joost a few months ago if best move has not changed for several plies, one more competing indicator was introduced for the same purpose along with increase in score and absence of fail low at root. It seems that tuning put relatively more importance on that new indicator what allowed to save time. • Some of this saved time is distributed proportionally between all moves and some more time were given to moves when score dropped a lot or best move changed. • It looks also that SPSA redistributed more time from the beginning to later stages of game via other changes in variables - maybe because contempt made game to last longer or for whatever reason. All of this is just small tweaks here and there (a few percentages changes). STC (10+0.1): LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00] Total: 18970 W: 4268 L: 4029 D: 10673 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9291a40ebc590297cc8881 LTC (60+0.6): LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00] Total: 72027 W: 12263 L: 11878 D: 47886 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a92d7510ebc590297cc88ef Additional non-regression tests at other time controls Sudden death 60s: LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.00,0.00] Total: 14444 W: 2715 L: 2608 D: 9121 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9445850ebc590297cc8a65 40 moves repeating at LTC: LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.00,0.00] Total: 10309 W: 1880 L: 1759 D: 6670 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9566ec0ebc590297cc8be1 This is a functional patch only for time management, but the bench does not reflect this because it uses fixed depth search, so the number of nodes does not change during bench. No functional change.
2018-02-28 04:36:36 -07:00
mainThread->bestMoveChanges *= 0.517, mainThread->failedLow = false;
// 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;
// MultiPV loop. We perform a full root search for each PV line
for (PVIdx = 0; PVIdx < multiPV && !Threads.stop; ++PVIdx)
{
// Reset UCI info selDepth for each depth and each PV line
selDepth = 0;
// Reset aspiration window starting size
if (rootDepth >= 5 * ONE_PLY)
{
delta = Value(18);
alpha = std::max(rootMoves[PVIdx].previousScore - delta,-VALUE_INFINITE);
beta = std::min(rootMoves[PVIdx].previousScore + delta, VALUE_INFINITE);
Introduce dynamic contempt Make contempt dependent on the current score of the root position. The idea is that we now use a linear formula like the following to decide on the contempt to use during a search : contempt = x + y * eval where x is the base contempt set by the user in the "Contempt" UCI option, and y * eval is the dynamic part which adapts itself to the estimation of the evaluation of the root position returned by the search. In this patch, we use x = 18 centipawns by default, and the y * eval correction can go from -20 centipawns if the root eval is less than -2.0 pawns, up to +20 centipawns when the root eval is more than 2.0 pawns. To summarize, the new contempt goes from -0.02 to 0.38 pawns, depending if Stockfish is losing or winning, with an average value of 0.18 pawns by default. STC: LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00] Total: 110052 W: 24614 L: 23938 D: 61500 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a72e6020ebc590f2c86ea20 LTC: LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00] Total: 16470 W: 2896 L: 2705 D: 10869 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a76c5b90ebc5902971a9830 A second match at LTC was organised against the current master: ELO: 1.45 +-2.9 (95%) LOS: 84.0% Total: 19369 W: 3350 L: 3269 D: 12750 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7acf980ebc5902971a9a2e Finally, we checked that there is no apparent problem with multithreading, despite the fact that some threads might have a slightly different contempt level that the main thread. Match of this version against master, both using 5 threads, time control 30+0.3: ELO: 2.18 +-3.2 (95%) LOS: 90.8% Total: 14840 W: 2502 L: 2409 D: 9929 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7bf3e80ebc5902971a9aa2 Include suggestions from Marco Costalba, Aram Tumanian, Ronald de Man, etc. Bench: 5207156
2018-02-09 10:43:53 -07:00
Using a S-curve for the optimism measure Add a logarithmic term in the optimism computation, increase the maximal optimism and lower the contempt offset. This increases the dynamics of the optimism aspects, giving a boost for balanced positions without skewing too much on unbalanced positions (but this version will enter panic mode faster than previous master when behind, trying to draw faster when slightly behind). This helps, since optimism is in general a good thing, for instance at LTC, but too high optimism rapidly contaminates play. passed STC: LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00] Total: 159343 W: 34489 L: 33588 D: 91266 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a8db9340ebc590297cc85b6 passed LTC: LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00] Total: 47491 W: 7825 L: 7517 D: 32149 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9456a80ebc590297cc8a89 It must be mentioned that a version of the PR with contempt 0 did not pass STC [0,5]. The version in the patch, which uses default contempt 12, was found to be as strong as current master on different matches against SF7 and SF8, both at STC and LTC. One drawback maybe is that it raises the draw rate in self-play from 56% to 59%, giving a little bit less sensitivity for SF developpers to find evaluation improvements by selfplay tests in fishtest. Possible further work: • tune the values accurately, while keeping in mind the drawrate issue • check whether it is possible to remove linear and offset term • try to simplify the S-shape curve Bench: 5934644
2018-03-04 08:50:19 -07:00
ct = Options["Contempt"] * PawnValueEg / 100; // From centipawns
// Adjust contempt based on current bestValue (dynamic contempt)
ct += int(std::round(48 * atan(float(bestValue) / 128)));
Introduce dynamic contempt Make contempt dependent on the current score of the root position. The idea is that we now use a linear formula like the following to decide on the contempt to use during a search : contempt = x + y * eval where x is the base contempt set by the user in the "Contempt" UCI option, and y * eval is the dynamic part which adapts itself to the estimation of the evaluation of the root position returned by the search. In this patch, we use x = 18 centipawns by default, and the y * eval correction can go from -20 centipawns if the root eval is less than -2.0 pawns, up to +20 centipawns when the root eval is more than 2.0 pawns. To summarize, the new contempt goes from -0.02 to 0.38 pawns, depending if Stockfish is losing or winning, with an average value of 0.18 pawns by default. STC: LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00] Total: 110052 W: 24614 L: 23938 D: 61500 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a72e6020ebc590f2c86ea20 LTC: LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00] Total: 16470 W: 2896 L: 2705 D: 10869 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a76c5b90ebc5902971a9830 A second match at LTC was organised against the current master: ELO: 1.45 +-2.9 (95%) LOS: 84.0% Total: 19369 W: 3350 L: 3269 D: 12750 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7acf980ebc5902971a9a2e Finally, we checked that there is no apparent problem with multithreading, despite the fact that some threads might have a slightly different contempt level that the main thread. Match of this version against master, both using 5 threads, time control 30+0.3: ELO: 2.18 +-3.2 (95%) LOS: 90.8% Total: 14840 W: 2502 L: 2409 D: 9929 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7bf3e80ebc5902971a9aa2 Include suggestions from Marco Costalba, Aram Tumanian, Ronald de Man, etc. Bench: 5207156
2018-02-09 10:43:53 -07:00
Eval::Contempt = (us == WHITE ? make_score(ct, ct / 2)
: -make_score(ct, ct / 2));
}
// Start with a small aspiration window and, in the case of a fail
// high/low, re-search with a bigger window until we don't fail
// high/low anymore.
while (true)
{
bestValue = ::search<PV>(rootPos, ss, alpha, beta, rootDepth, false, false);
// 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());
// If search has been stopped, we break immediately. Sorting is
// safe because RootMoves is still valid, although it refers to
// the previous iteration.
if (Threads.stop)
break;
// When failing high/low give some update (without cluttering
// the UI) before a re-search.
if ( mainThread
&& multiPV == 1
&& (bestValue <= alpha || bestValue >= beta)
&& Time.elapsed() > 3000)
sync_cout << UCI::pv(rootPos, rootDepth, alpha, beta) << sync_endl;
// 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);
if (mainThread)
{
mainThread->failedLow = true;
Threads.stopOnPonderhit = false;
}
}
else if (bestValue >= beta)
beta = std::min(bestValue + delta, VALUE_INFINITE);
else
break;
delta += delta / 4 + 5;
assert(alpha >= -VALUE_INFINITE && beta <= VALUE_INFINITE);
}
// Sort the PV lines searched so far and update the GUI
std::stable_sort(rootMoves.begin(), rootMoves.begin() + PVIdx + 1);
if ( mainThread
&& (Threads.stop || PVIdx + 1 == multiPV || Time.elapsed() > 3000))
sync_cout << UCI::pv(rootPos, rootDepth, alpha, beta) << sync_endl;
}
if (!Threads.stop)
completedDepth = rootDepth;
if (rootMoves[0].pv[0] != lastBestMove) {
lastBestMove = rootMoves[0].pv[0];
lastBestMoveDepth = rootDepth;
}
// 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;
if (!mainThread)
continue;
// If skill level is enabled and time is up, pick a sub-optimal best move
if (skill.enabled() && skill.time_to_pick(rootDepth))
skill.pick_best(multiPV);
// Do we have time for the next iteration? Can we stop searching now?
if ( Limits.use_time_management()
&& !Threads.stop
&& !Threads.stopOnPonderhit)
{
const int F[] = { mainThread->failedLow,
bestValue - mainThread->previousScore };
Tweak time management Using a SPSA tuning session to optimize the time management parameters. With SPSA tuning it is not always possible to say where improvements came from. Maybe some variables changed randomly or because result was not sensitive enough to them. So my explanation of changes will not be necessarily correct, but here it is. • When decrease of thinking time was added by Joost a few months ago if best move has not changed for several plies, one more competing indicator was introduced for the same purpose along with increase in score and absence of fail low at root. It seems that tuning put relatively more importance on that new indicator what allowed to save time. • Some of this saved time is distributed proportionally between all moves and some more time were given to moves when score dropped a lot or best move changed. • It looks also that SPSA redistributed more time from the beginning to later stages of game via other changes in variables - maybe because contempt made game to last longer or for whatever reason. All of this is just small tweaks here and there (a few percentages changes). STC (10+0.1): LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00] Total: 18970 W: 4268 L: 4029 D: 10673 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9291a40ebc590297cc8881 LTC (60+0.6): LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00] Total: 72027 W: 12263 L: 11878 D: 47886 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a92d7510ebc590297cc88ef Additional non-regression tests at other time controls Sudden death 60s: LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.00,0.00] Total: 14444 W: 2715 L: 2608 D: 9121 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9445850ebc590297cc8a65 40 moves repeating at LTC: LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.00,0.00] Total: 10309 W: 1880 L: 1759 D: 6670 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9566ec0ebc590297cc8be1 This is a functional patch only for time management, but the bench does not reflect this because it uses fixed depth search, so the number of nodes does not change during bench. No functional change.
2018-02-28 04:36:36 -07:00
int improvingFactor = std::max(246, std::min(832, 306 + 119 * F[0] - 6 * F[1]));
// If the bestMove is stable over several iterations, reduce time accordingly
timeReduction = 1.0;
for (int i : {3, 4, 5})
if (lastBestMoveDepth * i < completedDepth)
Tweak time management Using a SPSA tuning session to optimize the time management parameters. With SPSA tuning it is not always possible to say where improvements came from. Maybe some variables changed randomly or because result was not sensitive enough to them. So my explanation of changes will not be necessarily correct, but here it is. • When decrease of thinking time was added by Joost a few months ago if best move has not changed for several plies, one more competing indicator was introduced for the same purpose along with increase in score and absence of fail low at root. It seems that tuning put relatively more importance on that new indicator what allowed to save time. • Some of this saved time is distributed proportionally between all moves and some more time were given to moves when score dropped a lot or best move changed. • It looks also that SPSA redistributed more time from the beginning to later stages of game via other changes in variables - maybe because contempt made game to last longer or for whatever reason. All of this is just small tweaks here and there (a few percentages changes). STC (10+0.1): LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00] Total: 18970 W: 4268 L: 4029 D: 10673 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9291a40ebc590297cc8881 LTC (60+0.6): LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00] Total: 72027 W: 12263 L: 11878 D: 47886 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a92d7510ebc590297cc88ef Additional non-regression tests at other time controls Sudden death 60s: LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.00,0.00] Total: 14444 W: 2715 L: 2608 D: 9121 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9445850ebc590297cc8a65 40 moves repeating at LTC: LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.00,0.00] Total: 10309 W: 1880 L: 1759 D: 6670 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9566ec0ebc590297cc8be1 This is a functional patch only for time management, but the bench does not reflect this because it uses fixed depth search, so the number of nodes does not change during bench. No functional change.
2018-02-28 04:36:36 -07:00
timeReduction *= 1.25;
// Use part of the gained time from a previous stable move for the current move
double bestMoveInstability = 1.0 + mainThread->bestMoveChanges;
bestMoveInstability *= std::pow(mainThread->previousTimeReduction, 0.528) / timeReduction;
// Stop the search if we have only one legal move, or if available time elapsed
if ( rootMoves.size() == 1
|| Time.elapsed() > Time.optimum() * bestMoveInstability * improvingFactor / 581)
{
// If we are allowed to ponder do not stop the search now but
// keep pondering until the GUI sends "ponderhit" or "stop".
if (Threads.ponder)
Threads.stopOnPonderhit = true;
else
Threads.stop = true;
}
}
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
}
if (!mainThread)
return;
mainThread->previousTimeReduction = timeReduction;
// If skill level is enabled, swap best PV line with the sub-optimal one
if (skill.enabled())
std::swap(rootMoves[0], *std::find(rootMoves.begin(), rootMoves.end(),
skill.best ? skill.best : skill.pick_best(multiPV)));
}
namespace {
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
// search<>() is the main search function for both PV and non-PV nodes
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
template <NodeType NT>
Value search(Position& pos, Stack* ss, Value alpha, Value beta, Depth depth, bool cutNode, bool skipEarlyPruning) {
// Use quiescence search when needed
if (depth < ONE_PLY)
return qsearch<NT>(pos, ss, alpha, beta);
constexpr 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;
assert(-VALUE_INFINITE <= alpha && alpha < beta && beta <= VALUE_INFINITE);
assert(PvNode || (alpha == beta - 1));
assert(DEPTH_ZERO < depth && depth < DEPTH_MAX);
assert(!(PvNode && cutNode));
assert(depth / ONE_PLY * ONE_PLY == depth);
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
Move pv[MAX_PLY+1], capturesSearched[32], quietsSearched[64];
StateInfo st;
TTEntry* tte;
Key posKey;
Move ttMove, move, excludedMove, bestMove;
Depth extension, newDepth;
Value bestValue, value, ttValue, eval, maxValue;
bool ttHit, inCheck, givesCheck, singularExtensionNode, improving;
bool captureOrPromotion, doFullDepthSearch, moveCountPruning, skipQuiets, ttCapture, pvExact;
Piece movedPiece;
int moveCount, captureCount, quietCount;
// Step 1. Initialize node
Thread* thisThread = pos.this_thread();
inCheck = pos.checkers();
moveCount = captureCount = quietCount = ss->moveCount = 0;
bestValue = -VALUE_INFINITE;
maxValue = VALUE_INFINITE;
// Check for the available remaining time
if (thisThread == Threads.main())
static_cast<MainThread*>(thisThread)->check_time();
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;
if (!rootNode)
{
// Step 2. Check for aborted search and immediate draw
if ( Threads.stop.load(std::memory_order_relaxed)
|| pos.is_draw(ss->ply)
|| ss->ply >= MAX_PLY)
return (ss->ply >= MAX_PLY && !inCheck) ? evaluate(pos) : VALUE_DRAW;
// 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
// 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.
alpha = std::max(mated_in(ss->ply), alpha);
beta = std::min(mate_in(ss->ply+1), beta);
if (alpha >= beta)
return alpha;
}
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;
ss->currentMove = (ss+1)->excludedMove = bestMove = MOVE_NONE;
ss->contHistory = thisThread->contHistory[NO_PIECE][0].get();
(ss+2)->killers[0] = (ss+2)->killers[1] = MOVE_NONE;
Square prevSq = to_sq((ss-1)->currentMove);
// Initialize statScore to zero for the grandchildren of the current position.
// So statScore is shared between all grandchildren and only the first grandchild
// starts with statScore = 0. Later grandchildren start with the last calculated
// statScore of the previous grandchild. This influences the reduction rules in
// LMR which are based on the statScore of parent position.
(ss+2)->statScore = 0;
// 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.
excludedMove = ss->excludedMove;
posKey = pos.key() ^ Key(excludedMove << 16); // Isn't a very good hash
tte = TT.probe(posKey, ttHit);
ttValue = ttHit ? value_from_tt(tte->value(), ss->ply) : VALUE_NONE;
ttMove = rootNode ? thisThread->rootMoves[thisThread->PVIdx].pv[0]
: ttHit ? tte->move() : MOVE_NONE;
// At non-PV nodes we check for an early TT cutoff
if ( !PvNode
&& ttHit
&& tte->depth() >= depth
&& ttValue != VALUE_NONE // Possible in case of TT access race
&& (ttValue >= beta ? (tte->bound() & BOUND_LOWER)
: (tte->bound() & BOUND_UPPER)))
{
// If ttMove is quiet, update move sorting heuristics on TT hit
if (ttMove)
{
if (ttValue >= beta)
{
if (!pos.capture_or_promotion(ttMove))
update_quiet_stats(pos, ss, ttMove, nullptr, 0, stat_bonus(depth));
// Extra penalty for a quiet TT move in previous ply when it gets refuted
if ((ss-1)->moveCount == 1 && !pos.captured_piece())
update_continuation_histories(ss-1, pos.piece_on(prevSq), prevSq, -stat_bonus(depth + ONE_PLY));
}
// Penalty for a quiet ttMove that fails low
else if (!pos.capture_or_promotion(ttMove))
{
int penalty = -stat_bonus(depth);
thisThread->mainHistory[pos.side_to_move()][from_to(ttMove)] << penalty;
update_continuation_histories(ss, pos.moved_piece(ttMove), to_sq(ttMove), penalty);
}
}
return ttValue;
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
}
// Step 5. Tablebases probe
if (!rootNode && TB::Cardinality)
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
{
int piecesCount = pos.count<ALL_PIECES>();
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
if ( piecesCount <= TB::Cardinality
&& (piecesCount < TB::Cardinality || depth >= TB::ProbeDepth)
&& pos.rule50_count() == 0
&& !pos.can_castle(ANY_CASTLING))
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
{
TB::ProbeState err;
TB::WDLScore wdl = Tablebases::probe_wdl(pos, &err);
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
if (err != TB::ProbeState::FAIL)
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
{
thisThread->tbHits.fetch_add(1, std::memory_order_relaxed);
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
int drawScore = TB::UseRule50 ? 1 : 0;
value = wdl < -drawScore ? -VALUE_MATE + MAX_PLY + ss->ply + 1
: wdl > drawScore ? VALUE_MATE - MAX_PLY - ss->ply - 1
: VALUE_DRAW + 2 * wdl * drawScore;
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
Bound b = wdl < -drawScore ? BOUND_UPPER
: wdl > drawScore ? BOUND_LOWER : BOUND_EXACT;
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
if ( b == BOUND_EXACT
|| (b == BOUND_LOWER ? value >= beta : value <= alpha))
{
tte->save(posKey, value_to_tt(value, ss->ply), b,
std::min(DEPTH_MAX - ONE_PLY, depth + 6 * ONE_PLY),
MOVE_NONE, VALUE_NONE, TT.generation());
return value;
}
if (PvNode)
{
if (b == BOUND_LOWER)
bestValue = value, alpha = std::max(alpha, bestValue);
else
maxValue = value;
}
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
}
}
}
// Step 6. Evaluate the position statically
if (inCheck)
{
ss->staticEval = eval = VALUE_NONE;
improving = false;
goto moves_loop;
}
else if (ttHit)
{
// Never assume anything on values stored in TT
if ((ss->staticEval = eval = tte->eval()) == VALUE_NONE)
eval = ss->staticEval = evaluate(pos);
// Can ttValue be used as a better position evaluation?
if ( ttValue != VALUE_NONE
&& (tte->bound() & (ttValue > eval ? BOUND_LOWER : BOUND_UPPER)))
eval = ttValue;
}
else
{
ss->staticEval = eval =
(ss-1)->currentMove != MOVE_NULL ? evaluate(pos)
: -(ss-1)->staticEval + 2 * Eval::Tempo;
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
improving = ss->staticEval >= (ss-2)->staticEval
||(ss-2)->staticEval == VALUE_NONE;
if (skipEarlyPruning || !pos.non_pawn_material(pos.side_to_move()))
goto moves_loop;
// Step 7. Razoring (skipped when in check)
if ( !PvNode
&& depth <= 2 * ONE_PLY)
{
if ( depth == ONE_PLY
&& eval + RazorMargin1 <= alpha)
return qsearch<NonPV>(pos, ss, alpha, alpha+1);
else if (eval + RazorMargin2 <= alpha)
{
Value ralpha = alpha - RazorMargin2;
Value v = qsearch<NonPV>(pos, ss, ralpha, ralpha+1);
if (v <= ralpha)
return v;
}
}
// Step 8. Futility pruning: child node (skipped when in check)
if ( !rootNode
&& depth < 7 * ONE_PLY
&& eval - futility_margin(depth, improving) >= beta
&& eval < VALUE_KNOWN_WIN) // Do not return unproven wins
return eval;
// Step 9. Null move search with verification search
if ( !PvNode
&& eval >= beta
&& ss->staticEval >= beta - 36 * depth / ONE_PLY + 225
&& (ss->ply >= thisThread->nmp_ply || ss->ply % 2 != thisThread->nmp_odd))
{
assert(eval - beta >= 0);
// Null move dynamic reduction based on depth and value
Depth R = ((823 + 67 * depth / ONE_PLY) / 256 + std::min((eval - beta) / PawnValueMg, 3)) * ONE_PLY;
ss->currentMove = MOVE_NULL;
ss->contHistory = thisThread->contHistory[NO_PIECE][0].get();
pos.do_null_move(st);
Value nullValue = -search<NonPV>(pos, ss+1, -beta, -beta+1, depth-R, !cutNode, true);
pos.undo_null_move();
if (nullValue >= beta)
{
// Do not return unproven mate scores
if (nullValue >= VALUE_MATE_IN_MAX_PLY)
nullValue = beta;
if (abs(beta) < VALUE_KNOWN_WIN && (depth < 12 * ONE_PLY || thisThread->nmp_ply))
return nullValue;
// Do verification search at high depths. Disable null move pruning
// for side to move for the first part of the remaining search tree.
thisThread->nmp_ply = ss->ply + 3 * (depth-R) / 4;
thisThread->nmp_odd = ss->ply % 2;
Value v = search<NonPV>(pos, ss, beta-1, beta, depth-R, false, true);
thisThread->nmp_odd = thisThread->nmp_ply = 0;
if (v >= beta)
return nullValue;
}
}
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
// Step 10. ProbCut (skipped when in check)
// 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.
if ( !PvNode
&& depth >= 5 * ONE_PLY
&& abs(beta) < VALUE_MATE_IN_MAX_PLY)
{
assert(is_ok((ss-1)->currentMove));
Value rbeta = std::min(beta + 216 - 48 * improving, VALUE_INFINITE);
MovePicker mp(pos, ttMove, rbeta - ss->staticEval, &thisThread->captureHistory);
int probCutCount = 0;
while ( (move = mp.next_move()) != MOVE_NONE
&& probCutCount < 3)
if (pos.legal(move))
{
probCutCount++;
ss->currentMove = move;
ss->contHistory = thisThread->contHistory[pos.moved_piece(move)][to_sq(move)].get();
assert(depth >= 5 * ONE_PLY);
pos.do_move(move, st);
// Perform a preliminary qsearch to verify that the move holds
value = -qsearch<NonPV>(pos, ss+1, -rbeta, -rbeta+1);
// If the qsearch held perform the regular search
if (value >= rbeta)
value = -search<NonPV>(pos, ss+1, -rbeta, -rbeta+1, depth - 4 * ONE_PLY, !cutNode, false);
pos.undo_move(move);
if (value >= rbeta)
return value;
}
}
// Step 11. Internal iterative deepening (skipped when in check)
if ( depth >= 6 * ONE_PLY
&& !ttMove
&& (PvNode || ss->staticEval + 256 >= beta))
{
Depth d = 3 * depth / 4 - 2 * ONE_PLY;
search<NT>(pos, ss, alpha, beta, d, cutNode, true);
tte = TT.probe(posKey, ttHit);
More robust interaction of singular search and iid When iid (Internal iterative deepening) is invoked, the prior value of ttValue is not guaranteed to be VALUE_NONE. As such, it is currently possible to enter a state in which ttValue has a specific value which is inconsistent with tte->bound() and tte->depth(). Currently, ttValue is only used within the search in a context that prevents this situation from making a difference (and so this change is non-functional, but this is not guaranteed to remain the case in the future. For instance, just changing the tt depth condition in singular extension node to be tte->depth() >= depth - 4 * ONE_PLY instead of tte->depth() >= depth - 3 * ONE_PLY interacts badly with the absence of ttMove in iid. For the ttMove to become a singular extension candidate, singularExtensionNode needs to be true. With the current master, this requires that tte->depth() >= depth - 3 * ONE_PLY. This is not currently possible if tte comes from IID, since the depth 'd' used for the IID search is always less than depth - 4 * ONE_PLY for depth >= 8 * ONE_PLY (below depth 8 singularExtensionNode can never be true anyway). However, with DU-jdto/Stockfish@251281a , this condition can be met, and it is possible for singularExtensionNode to become true after IID. There are then two mechanisms by which this patch can affect the search: • If ttValue was VALUE_NONE prior to IID, the fact that this patch sets ttValue allows the 'ttValue != VALUE_NONE' condition of singularExtensionNode to be met. • If ttValue wasn't VALUE_NONE prior to IID, the fact that this patch modifies ttValue's value causes a different 'rBeta' to be calculated if the singular extension search is performed. Tested at STC for non-regression: LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00] Total: 76981 W: 17060 L: 17048 D: 42873 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7738b70ebc5902971a9868 No functional change
2018-02-24 17:14:29 -07:00
ttValue = ttHit ? value_from_tt(tte->value(), ss->ply) : VALUE_NONE;
ttMove = ttHit ? tte->move() : MOVE_NONE;
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
}
moves_loop: // When in check, search starts from here
const PieceToHistory* contHist[] = { (ss-1)->contHistory, (ss-2)->contHistory, nullptr, (ss-4)->contHistory };
Move countermove = thisThread->counterMoves[pos.piece_on(prevSq)][prevSq];
MovePicker mp(pos, ttMove, depth, &thisThread->mainHistory, &thisThread->captureHistory, contHist, countermove, ss->killers);
value = bestValue; // Workaround a bogus 'uninitialized' warning under gcc
singularExtensionNode = !rootNode
&& depth >= 8 * ONE_PLY
&& ttMove != MOVE_NONE
&& ttValue != VALUE_NONE
&& !excludedMove // Recursive singular search is not allowed
&& (tte->bound() & BOUND_LOWER)
&& tte->depth() >= depth - 3 * ONE_PLY;
skipQuiets = false;
ttCapture = false;
pvExact = PvNode && ttHit && tte->bound() == BOUND_EXACT;
// Step 12. Loop through all pseudo-legal moves until no moves remain
// or a beta cutoff occurs.
while ((move = mp.next_move(skipQuiets)) != MOVE_NONE)
{
assert(is_ok(move));
if (move == excludedMove)
continue;
// At root obey the "searchmoves" option and skip moves not listed in Root
// Move List. As a consequence any illegal move is also skipped. In MultiPV
// mode we also skip PV moves which have been already searched.
if (rootNode && !std::count(thisThread->rootMoves.begin() + thisThread->PVIdx,
thisThread->rootMoves.end(), move))
continue;
ss->moveCount = ++moveCount;
if (rootNode && thisThread == Threads.main() && Time.elapsed() > 3000)
sync_cout << "info depth " << depth / ONE_PLY
<< " currmove " << UCI::move(move, pos.is_chess960())
<< " currmovenumber " << moveCount + thisThread->PVIdx << sync_endl;
if (PvNode)
(ss+1)->pv = nullptr;
extension = DEPTH_ZERO;
captureOrPromotion = pos.capture_or_promotion(move);
movedPiece = pos.moved_piece(move);
givesCheck = gives_check(pos, move);
moveCountPruning = depth < 16 * ONE_PLY
&& moveCount >= FutilityMoveCounts[improving][depth / ONE_PLY];
// Step 13. Extensions
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -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 on on all the other moves but the ttMove and if the
// result is lower than ttValue minus a margin then we will extend the ttMove.
if ( singularExtensionNode
&& move == ttMove
&& pos.legal(move))
{
Value rBeta = std::max(ttValue - 2 * depth / ONE_PLY, -VALUE_MATE);
ss->excludedMove = move;
value = search<NonPV>(pos, ss, rBeta - 1, rBeta, depth / 2, cutNode, true);
ss->excludedMove = MOVE_NONE;
if (value < rBeta)
extension = ONE_PLY;
}
else if ( givesCheck // Check extension
&& !moveCountPruning
&& pos.see_ge(move))
extension = ONE_PLY;
// Calculate new depth for this move
newDepth = depth - ONE_PLY + extension;
// Step 14. Pruning at shallow depth
if ( !rootNode
&& pos.non_pawn_material(pos.side_to_move())
&& bestValue > VALUE_MATED_IN_MAX_PLY)
{
if ( !captureOrPromotion
&& !givesCheck
&& (!pos.advanced_pawn_push(move) || pos.non_pawn_material() >= Value(5000)))
{
// Move count based pruning
if (moveCountPruning)
{
skipQuiets = true;
continue;
}
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
// Reduced depth of the next LMR search
int lmrDepth = std::max(newDepth - reduction<PvNode>(improving, depth, moveCount), DEPTH_ZERO) / ONE_PLY;
// Countermoves based pruning
if ( lmrDepth < 3
&& (*contHist[0])[movedPiece][to_sq(move)] < CounterMovePruneThreshold
&& (*contHist[1])[movedPiece][to_sq(move)] < CounterMovePruneThreshold)
continue;
// Futility pruning: parent node
if ( lmrDepth < 7
&& !inCheck
&& ss->staticEval + 256 + 200 * lmrDepth <= alpha)
continue;
// Prune moves with negative SEE
if ( lmrDepth < 8
&& !pos.see_ge(move, Value(-35 * lmrDepth * lmrDepth)))
continue;
}
else if ( depth < 7 * ONE_PLY
&& !extension
&& !pos.see_ge(move, -PawnValueEg * (depth / ONE_PLY)))
continue;
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
}
// Speculative prefetch as early as possible
prefetch(TT.first_entry(pos.key_after(move)));
// Check for legality just before making the move
if (!rootNode && !pos.legal(move))
{
ss->moveCount = --moveCount;
continue;
}
if (move == ttMove && captureOrPromotion)
ttCapture = true;
// Update the current move (this must be done after singular extension search)
ss->currentMove = move;
ss->contHistory = thisThread->contHistory[movedPiece][to_sq(move)].get();
// Step 15. Make the move
pos.do_move(move, st, givesCheck);
// Step 16. Reduced depth search (LMR). If the move fails high it will be
// re-searched at full depth.
if ( depth >= 3 * ONE_PLY
&& moveCount > 1
&& (!captureOrPromotion || moveCountPruning))
{
Depth r = reduction<PvNode>(improving, depth, moveCount);
if (captureOrPromotion)
r -= r ? ONE_PLY : DEPTH_ZERO;
else
{
// Decrease reduction if opponent's move count is high
if ((ss-1)->moveCount > 15)
r -= ONE_PLY;
// Decrease reduction for exact PV nodes
if (pvExact)
r -= ONE_PLY;
// Increase reduction if ttMove is a capture
if (ttCapture)
r += ONE_PLY;
// 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
// hence break make_move().
else if ( type_of(move) == NORMAL
&& !pos.see_ge(make_move(to_sq(move), from_sq(move))))
r -= 2 * ONE_PLY;
ss->statScore = thisThread->mainHistory[~pos.side_to_move()][from_to(move)]
+ (*contHist[0])[movedPiece][to_sq(move)]
+ (*contHist[1])[movedPiece][to_sq(move)]
+ (*contHist[3])[movedPiece][to_sq(move)]
- 4000;
// Decrease/increase reduction by comparing opponent's stat score
if (ss->statScore >= 0 && (ss-1)->statScore < 0)
r -= ONE_PLY;
else if ((ss-1)->statScore >= 0 && ss->statScore < 0)
r += ONE_PLY;
// Decrease/increase reduction for moves with a good/bad history
r = std::max(DEPTH_ZERO, (r / ONE_PLY - ss->statScore / 20000) * ONE_PLY);
}
Depth d = std::max(newDepth - r, ONE_PLY);
value = -search<NonPV>(pos, ss+1, -(alpha+1), -alpha, d, true, false);
doFullDepthSearch = (value > alpha && d != newDepth);
}
else
doFullDepthSearch = !PvNode || moveCount > 1;
// Step 17. Full depth search when LMR is skipped or fails high
if (doFullDepthSearch)
value = -search<NonPV>(pos, ss+1, -(alpha+1), -alpha, newDepth, !cutNode, false);
// 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
// parent node fail low with value <= alpha and try another move.
if (PvNode && (moveCount == 1 || (value > alpha && (rootNode || value < beta))))
{
(ss+1)->pv = pv;
(ss+1)->pv[0] = MOVE_NONE;
value = -search<PV>(pos, ss+1, -beta, -alpha, newDepth, false, false);
}
// Step 18. Undo move
pos.undo_move(move);
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
assert(value > -VALUE_INFINITE && value < VALUE_INFINITE);
// Step 19. Check for a new best move
// Finished searching the move. If a stop occurred, the return value of
// the search cannot be trusted, and we return immediately without
// updating best move, PV and TT.
if (Threads.stop.load(std::memory_order_relaxed))
return VALUE_ZERO;
if (rootNode)
{
RootMove& rm = *std::find(thisThread->rootMoves.begin(),
thisThread->rootMoves.end(), move);
// PV move or new best move?
if (moveCount == 1 || value > alpha)
{
rm.score = value;
rm.selDepth = thisThread->selDepth;
rm.pv.resize(1);
assert((ss+1)->pv);
for (Move* m = (ss+1)->pv; *m != MOVE_NONE; ++m)
rm.pv.push_back(*m);
// We record how often the best move has been changed in each
// iteration. This information is used for time management: When
// the best move changes frequently, we allocate some more time.
if (moveCount > 1 && thisThread == Threads.main())
++static_cast<MainThread*>(thisThread)->bestMoveChanges;
}
else
// 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
// move position in the list is preserved - just the PV is pushed up.
rm.score = -VALUE_INFINITE;
}
if (value > bestValue)
{
bestValue = value;
if (value > alpha)
{
bestMove = move;
if (PvNode && !rootNode) // Update pv even in fail-high case
update_pv(ss->pv, move, (ss+1)->pv);
if (PvNode && value < beta) // Update alpha! Always alpha < beta
alpha = value;
else
{
assert(value >= beta); // Fail high
break;
}
}
}
if (move != bestMove)
{
if (captureOrPromotion && captureCount < 32)
capturesSearched[captureCount++] = move;
else if (!captureOrPromotion && quietCount < 64)
quietsSearched[quietCount++] = move;
}
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
}
// The following condition would detect a stop only after move loop has been
// completed. But in this case bestValue is valid because we have fully
// searched our subtree, and we can anyhow save the result in TT.
/*
if (Threads.stop)
return VALUE_DRAW;
*/
// Step 20. Check for mate and stalemate
// All legal moves have been searched and if there are no legal moves, it
// must be a mate or a stalemate. If we are in a singular extension search then
// return a fail low score.
assert(moveCount || !inCheck || excludedMove || !MoveList<LEGAL>(pos).size());
if (!moveCount)
bestValue = excludedMove ? alpha
A better contempt implementation for Stockfish (#1325) * A better contempt implementation for Stockfish The round 2 of TCEC season 10 demonstrated the benefit of having a nice contempt implementation: it gives the strongest programs in the tournament the ability to slow down the game when they feel the position is slightly worse, prefering to stay in a complicated (even if slightly risky) middle game rather than simplifying by force into a drawn endgame. The current contempt implementation of Stockfish is inadequate, and this patch is an attempt to provide a better one. Passed STC non-regression test against master: LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00] Total: 83360 W: 15089 L: 15075 D: 53196 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a1bf2de0ebc590ccbb8b370 This contempt implementation is showing promising results in certains situations. For instance, it obtained a nice +30 Elo gain when playing with contempt=40 against Stockfish 7, compared to current master: • master against SF 7 (20000 games at LTC): +121.2 Elo • this patch with contempt=40 (20000 games at LTC): +154.11 Elo This was the result of real cooperative work from the Stockfish team, with key ideas coming from Stefan Geschwentner (locutus2) and Chris Cain (ceebo) while most of the community helped with feedback and computer time. In this commit the bench is unchanged by default, but you can test at home with the new contempt in the UCI options. The style of play will change a lot when using contempt different of zero (I repeat: not done in this version by default, however)! The Stockfish team is still deliberating over the best default contempt value in self-play and the best contempt modeling strategy, to help users choosing a contempt value when playing against much weaker programs. These informations will be given in future commits when available :-) Bench: 5051254 * Remove the prefetch No functional change.
2017-12-04 23:25:42 -07:00
: inCheck ? mated_in(ss->ply) : VALUE_DRAW;
else if (bestMove)
{
// Quiet best move: update move sorting heuristics
if (!pos.capture_or_promotion(bestMove))
update_quiet_stats(pos, ss, bestMove, quietsSearched, quietCount, stat_bonus(depth));
else
update_capture_stats(pos, bestMove, capturesSearched, captureCount, stat_bonus(depth));
// Extra penalty for a quiet TT move in previous ply when it gets refuted
if ((ss-1)->moveCount == 1 && !pos.captured_piece())
update_continuation_histories(ss-1, pos.piece_on(prevSq), prevSq, -stat_bonus(depth + ONE_PLY));
}
// Bonus for prior countermove that caused the fail low
else if ( depth >= 3 * ONE_PLY
&& !pos.captured_piece()
&& is_ok((ss-1)->currentMove))
update_continuation_histories(ss-1, pos.piece_on(prevSq), prevSq, stat_bonus(depth));
if (PvNode)
bestValue = std::min(bestValue, maxValue);
if (!excludedMove)
tte->save(posKey, value_to_tt(bestValue, ss->ply),
bestValue >= beta ? BOUND_LOWER :
PvNode && bestMove ? BOUND_EXACT : BOUND_UPPER,
depth, bestMove, ss->staticEval, TT.generation());
assert(bestValue > -VALUE_INFINITE && bestValue < VALUE_INFINITE);
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
return bestValue;
}
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
// qsearch() is the quiescence search function, which is called by the main
// search function with depth zero, or recursively with depth less than ONE_PLY.
template <NodeType NT>
Value qsearch(Position& pos, Stack* ss, Value alpha, Value beta, Depth depth) {
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
constexpr bool PvNode = NT == PV;
const bool inCheck = bool(pos.checkers());
assert(alpha >= -VALUE_INFINITE && alpha < beta && beta <= VALUE_INFINITE);
assert(PvNode || (alpha == beta - 1));
assert(depth <= DEPTH_ZERO);
assert(depth / ONE_PLY * ONE_PLY == depth);
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
Move pv[MAX_PLY+1];
StateInfo st;
TTEntry* tte;
Key posKey;
Move ttMove, move, bestMove;
Depth ttDepth;
Value bestValue, value, ttValue, futilityValue, futilityBase, oldAlpha;
bool ttHit, givesCheck, evasionPrunable;
int moveCount;
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;
}
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;
ss->currentMove = bestMove = MOVE_NONE;
moveCount = 0;
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
// Check for an immediate draw or maximum ply reached
if ( pos.is_draw(ss->ply)
|| ss->ply >= MAX_PLY)
return (ss->ply >= MAX_PLY && !inCheck) ? evaluate(pos) : VALUE_DRAW;
assert(0 <= ss->ply && ss->ply < MAX_PLY);
// Decide whether or not to include checks: this fixes also the type of
// 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;
// Transposition table lookup
posKey = pos.key();
tte = TT.probe(posKey, ttHit);
ttValue = ttHit ? value_from_tt(tte->value(), ss->ply) : VALUE_NONE;
More robust interaction of singular search and iid When iid (Internal iterative deepening) is invoked, the prior value of ttValue is not guaranteed to be VALUE_NONE. As such, it is currently possible to enter a state in which ttValue has a specific value which is inconsistent with tte->bound() and tte->depth(). Currently, ttValue is only used within the search in a context that prevents this situation from making a difference (and so this change is non-functional, but this is not guaranteed to remain the case in the future. For instance, just changing the tt depth condition in singular extension node to be tte->depth() >= depth - 4 * ONE_PLY instead of tte->depth() >= depth - 3 * ONE_PLY interacts badly with the absence of ttMove in iid. For the ttMove to become a singular extension candidate, singularExtensionNode needs to be true. With the current master, this requires that tte->depth() >= depth - 3 * ONE_PLY. This is not currently possible if tte comes from IID, since the depth 'd' used for the IID search is always less than depth - 4 * ONE_PLY for depth >= 8 * ONE_PLY (below depth 8 singularExtensionNode can never be true anyway). However, with DU-jdto/Stockfish@251281a , this condition can be met, and it is possible for singularExtensionNode to become true after IID. There are then two mechanisms by which this patch can affect the search: • If ttValue was VALUE_NONE prior to IID, the fact that this patch sets ttValue allows the 'ttValue != VALUE_NONE' condition of singularExtensionNode to be met. • If ttValue wasn't VALUE_NONE prior to IID, the fact that this patch modifies ttValue's value causes a different 'rBeta' to be calculated if the singular extension search is performed. Tested at STC for non-regression: LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00] Total: 76981 W: 17060 L: 17048 D: 42873 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7738b70ebc5902971a9868 No functional change
2018-02-24 17:14:29 -07:00
ttMove = ttHit ? tte->move() : MOVE_NONE;
if ( !PvNode
&& ttHit
&& tte->depth() >= ttDepth
&& ttValue != VALUE_NONE // Only in case of TT access race
&& (ttValue >= beta ? (tte->bound() & BOUND_LOWER)
: (tte->bound() & BOUND_UPPER)))
return ttValue;
// Evaluate the position statically
if (inCheck)
{
ss->staticEval = VALUE_NONE;
bestValue = futilityBase = -VALUE_INFINITE;
}
else
{
if (ttHit)
{
// Never assume anything on values stored in TT
if ((ss->staticEval = bestValue = tte->eval()) == VALUE_NONE)
ss->staticEval = bestValue = evaluate(pos);
// Can ttValue be used as a better position evaluation?
if ( ttValue != VALUE_NONE
&& (tte->bound() & (ttValue > bestValue ? BOUND_LOWER : BOUND_UPPER)))
bestValue = ttValue;
}
else
ss->staticEval = bestValue =
(ss-1)->currentMove != MOVE_NULL ? evaluate(pos)
: -(ss-1)->staticEval + 2 * Eval::Tempo;
// Stand pat. Return immediately if static value is at least beta
if (bestValue >= beta)
{
if (!ttHit)
tte->save(posKey, value_to_tt(bestValue, ss->ply), BOUND_LOWER,
DEPTH_NONE, MOVE_NONE, ss->staticEval, TT.generation());
return bestValue;
}
if (PvNode && bestValue > alpha)
alpha = bestValue;
futilityBase = bestValue + 128;
}
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
// Initialize a MovePicker object for the current position, and prepare
// to search the moves. Because the depth is <= 0 here, only captures,
// queen promotions and checks (only if depth >= DEPTH_QS_CHECKS) will
// be generated.
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
// Loop through the moves until no moves remain or a beta cutoff occurs
while ((move = mp.next_move()) != MOVE_NONE)
{
assert(is_ok(move));
givesCheck = gives_check(pos, move);
moveCount++;
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
// Futility pruning
if ( !inCheck
&& !givesCheck
&& futilityBase > -VALUE_KNOWN_WIN
&& !pos.advanced_pawn_push(move))
{
assert(type_of(move) != ENPASSANT); // Due to !pos.advanced_pawn_push
futilityValue = futilityBase + PieceValue[EG][pos.piece_on(to_sq(move))];
if (futilityValue <= alpha)
{
bestValue = std::max(bestValue, futilityValue);
continue;
}
if (futilityBase <= alpha && !pos.see_ge(move, VALUE_ZERO + 1))
{
bestValue = std::max(bestValue, futilityBase);
continue;
}
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
}
// Detect non-capture evasions that are candidates to be pruned
evasionPrunable = inCheck
&& (depth != DEPTH_ZERO || moveCount > 2)
&& bestValue > VALUE_MATED_IN_MAX_PLY
&& !pos.capture(move);
// Don't search moves with negative SEE values
if ( (!inCheck || evasionPrunable)
&& !pos.see_ge(move))
continue;
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
// Speculative prefetch as early as possible
prefetch(TT.first_entry(pos.key_after(move)));
// Check for legality just before making the move
if (!pos.legal(move))
{
moveCount--;
continue;
}
ss->currentMove = move;
// Make and search the move
pos.do_move(move, st, givesCheck);
value = -qsearch<NT>(pos, ss+1, -beta, -alpha, depth - ONE_PLY);
pos.undo_move(move);
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
assert(value > -VALUE_INFINITE && value < VALUE_INFINITE);
// Check for a new best move
if (value > bestValue)
{
bestValue = value;
if (value > alpha)
{
if (PvNode) // Update pv even in fail-high case
update_pv(ss->pv, move, (ss+1)->pv);
if (PvNode && value < beta) // Update alpha here!
{
alpha = value;
bestMove = move;
}
else // Fail high
{
tte->save(posKey, value_to_tt(value, ss->ply), BOUND_LOWER,
ttDepth, move, ss->staticEval, TT.generation());
return value;
}
}
}
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
}
// All legal moves have been searched. A special case: If we're in check
// and no legal moves were found, it is checkmate.
if (inCheck && bestValue == -VALUE_INFINITE)
return mated_in(ss->ply); // Plies to mate from the root
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
tte->save(posKey, value_to_tt(bestValue, ss->ply),
PvNode && bestValue > oldAlpha ? BOUND_EXACT : BOUND_UPPER,
ttDepth, bestMove, ss->staticEval, TT.generation());
assert(bestValue > -VALUE_INFINITE && bestValue < VALUE_INFINITE);
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
return bestValue;
}
// 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.
// The function is called before storing a value in the transposition table.
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
// from the transposition table (which refers to the plies to mate/be mated
// 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;
}
// update_pv() adds current move and appends child pv[]
void update_pv(Move* pv, Move move, Move* childPv) {
for (*pv++ = move; childPv && *childPv != MOVE_NONE; )
*pv++ = *childPv++;
*pv = MOVE_NONE;
}
// update_continuation_histories() updates histories of the move pairs formed
// by moves at ply -1, -2, and -4 with current move.
void update_continuation_histories(Stack* ss, Piece pc, Square to, int bonus) {
for (int i : {1, 2, 4})
if (is_ok((ss-i)->currentMove))
(*(ss-i)->contHistory)[pc][to] << bonus;
}
// 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[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[moved_piece][to_sq(captures[i])][captured] << -bonus;
}
}
// update_quiet_stats() updates move sorting heuristics when a new quiet best move is found
void update_quiet_stats(const Position& pos, Stack* ss, Move move,
Move* quiets, int quietsCnt, int bonus) {
if (ss->killers[0] != move)
{
ss->killers[1] = ss->killers[0];
ss->killers[0] = move;
}
Color us = pos.side_to_move();
Thread* thisThread = pos.this_thread();
thisThread->mainHistory[us][from_to(move)] << bonus;
update_continuation_histories(ss, pos.moved_piece(move), to_sq(move), bonus);
if (is_ok((ss-1)->currentMove))
{
Square prevSq = to_sq((ss-1)->currentMove);
thisThread->counterMoves[pos.piece_on(prevSq)][prevSq] = move;
}
// Decrease all the other played quiet moves
for (int i = 0; i < quietsCnt; ++i)
{
thisThread->mainHistory[us][from_to(quiets[i])] << -bonus;
update_continuation_histories(ss, pos.moved_piece(quiets[i]), to_sq(quiets[i]), -bonus);
}
}
// 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.
Move Skill::pick_best(size_t multiPV) {
const RootMoves& rootMoves = Threads.main()->rootMoves;
static PRNG rng(now()); // PRNG sequence should be non-deterministic
// RootMoves are already sorted by score in descending order
Value topScore = rootMoves[0].score;
int delta = std::min(topScore - rootMoves[multiPV - 1].score, PawnValueMg);
int weakness = 120 - 2 * level;
int maxScore = -VALUE_INFINITE;
// Choose best move. For each move score we add two terms, both dependent on
// weakness. One is deterministic and bigger for weaker levels, and one is
// random. Then we choose the move with the resulting highest score.
for (size_t i = 0; i < multiPV; ++i)
{
// This is our magic formula
int push = ( weakness * int(topScore - rootMoves[i].score)
+ delta * (rng.rand<unsigned>() % weakness)) / 128;
if (rootMoves[i].score + push >= maxScore)
{
maxScore = rootMoves[i].score + push;
best = rootMoves[i].pv[0];
}
}
return best;
}
} // namespace
/// MainThread::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.
void MainThread::check_time() {
if (--callsCnt > 0)
return;
// When using nodes, ensure checking rate is not lower than 0.1% of nodes
callsCnt = Limits.nodes ? std::min(1024, int(Limits.nodes / 1024)) : 1024;
static TimePoint lastInfoTime = now();
int elapsed = Time.elapsed();
TimePoint tick = Limits.startTime + elapsed;
if (tick - lastInfoTime >= 1000)
{
lastInfoTime = tick;
dbg_print();
}
// We should not stop pondering until told so by the GUI
if (Threads.ponder)
return;
if ( (Limits.use_time_management() && elapsed > Time.maximum() - 10)
|| (Limits.movetime && elapsed >= Limits.movetime)
|| (Limits.nodes && Threads.nodes_searched() >= (uint64_t)Limits.nodes))
Threads.stop = true;
}
/// 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.
string UCI::pv(const Position& pos, Depth depth, Value alpha, Value beta) {
std::stringstream ss;
int elapsed = Time.elapsed() + 1;
const RootMoves& rootMoves = pos.this_thread()->rootMoves;
size_t PVIdx = pos.this_thread()->PVIdx;
size_t multiPV = std::min((size_t)Options["MultiPV"], rootMoves.size());
uint64_t nodesSearched = Threads.nodes_searched();
uint64_t tbHits = Threads.tb_hits() + (TB::RootInTB ? rootMoves.size() : 0);
for (size_t i = 0; i < multiPV; ++i)
{
bool updated = (i <= PVIdx && rootMoves[i].score != -VALUE_INFINITE);
if (depth == ONE_PLY && !updated)
continue;
Depth d = updated ? depth : depth - ONE_PLY;
Value v = updated ? rootMoves[i].score : rootMoves[i].previousScore;
2015-01-18 00:05:05 -07:00
bool tb = TB::RootInTB && abs(v) < VALUE_MATE - MAX_PLY;
v = tb ? TB::Score : v;
if (ss.rdbuf()->in_avail()) // Not at first line
ss << "\n";
ss << "info"
<< " depth " << d / ONE_PLY
<< " seldepth " << rootMoves[i].selDepth
<< " multipv " << i + 1
<< " score " << UCI::value(v);
if (!tb && i == PVIdx)
ss << (v >= beta ? " lowerbound" : v <= alpha ? " upperbound" : "");
ss << " nodes " << nodesSearched
<< " nps " << nodesSearched * 1000 / elapsed;
2015-01-31 05:04:15 -07:00
if (elapsed > 1000) // Earlier makes little sense
ss << " hashfull " << TT.hashfull();
ss << " tbhits " << tbHits
<< " time " << elapsed
<< " pv";
for (Move m : rootMoves[i].pv)
ss << " " << UCI::move(m, pos.is_chess960());
}
return ss.str();
}
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
/// RootMove::extract_ponder_from_tt() is called in case we have no ponder move
/// before exiting the search, for instance, in case we stop the search during a
/// 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.
bool RootMove::extract_ponder_from_tt(Position& pos) {
StateInfo st;
bool ttHit;
assert(pv.size() == 1);
if (!pv[0])
return false;
pos.do_move(pv[0], st);
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))
pv.push_back(m);
}
pos.undo_move(pv[0]);
return pv.size() > 1;
}
void Tablebases::filter_root_moves(Position& pos, Search::RootMoves& rootMoves) {
RootInTB = false;
UseRule50 = Options["Syzygy50MoveRule"];
ProbeDepth = Options["SyzygyProbeDepth"] * ONE_PLY;
Cardinality = Options["SyzygyProbeLimit"];
// 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;
// Don't filter any moves if the user requested analysis on multiple
if (Options["MultiPV"] != 1)
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
if (RootInTB && TB::Score <= VALUE_DRAW)
Cardinality = 0;
}
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;
// Since root_probe() and root_probe_wdl() dirty the root move scores,
// we reset them to -VALUE_INFINITE
for (RootMove& rm : rootMoves)
rm.score = -VALUE_INFINITE;
}