1
0
Fork 0
stockfish/src/movepick.cpp

270 lines
8.8 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) 2004-2021 The Stockfish developers (see AUTHORS file)
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 <cassert>
#include "movepick.h"
namespace Stockfish {
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
namespace {
enum Stages {
MAIN_TT, CAPTURE_INIT, GOOD_CAPTURE, REFUTATION, QUIET_INIT, QUIET, BAD_CAPTURE,
EVASION_TT, EVASION_INIT, EVASION,
PROBCUT_TT, PROBCUT_INIT, PROBCUT,
QSEARCH_TT, QCAPTURE_INIT, QCAPTURE, QCHECK_INIT, QCHECK
};
// partial_insertion_sort() sorts moves in descending order up to and including
// a given limit. The order of moves smaller than the limit is left unspecified.
void partial_insertion_sort(ExtMove* begin, ExtMove* end, int limit) {
for (ExtMove *sortedEnd = begin, *p = begin + 1; p < end; ++p)
if (p->value >= limit)
{
ExtMove tmp = *p, *q;
*p = *++sortedEnd;
for (q = sortedEnd; q != begin && *(q - 1) < tmp; --q)
*q = *(q - 1);
*q = tmp;
}
}
} // namespace
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
/// Constructors of the MovePicker class. As arguments we pass information
/// to help it to return the (presumably) good moves first, to decide which
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
/// moves to return (in the quiescence search, for instance, we only want to
/// search captures, promotions, and some checks) and how important good move
/// ordering is at the current node.
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
/// MovePicker constructor for the main search
MovePicker::MovePicker(const Position& p, Move ttm, Depth d, const ButterflyHistory* mh, const LowPlyHistory* lp,
const CapturePieceToHistory* cph, const PieceToHistory** ch, Move cm, const Move* killers, int pl)
: pos(p), mainHistory(mh), lowPlyHistory(lp), captureHistory(cph), continuationHistory(ch),
ttMove(ttm), refutations{{killers[0], 0}, {killers[1], 0}, {cm, 0}}, depth(d), ply(pl) {
Eliminate ONE_PLY Simplification that eliminates ONE_PLY, based on a suggestion in the forum that support for fractional plies has never been used, and @mcostalba's openness to the idea of eliminating it. We lose a little bit of type safety by making Depth an integer, but in return we simplify the code in search.cpp quite significantly. No functional change ------------------------------------------ The argument favoring eliminating ONE_PLY: * The term “ONE_PLY” comes up in a lot of forum posts (474 to date) https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/fishcooking/ONE_PLY%7Csort:relevance * There is occasionally a commit that breaks invariance of the code with respect to ONE_PLY https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/fishcooking/ONE_PLY%7Csort:date/fishcooking/ZIPdYj6k0fk/KdNGcPWeBgAJ * To prevent such commits, there is a Travis CI hack that doubles ONE_PLY and rechecks bench * Sustaining ONE_PLY has, alas, not resulted in any improvements to the engine, despite many individuals testing many experiments over 5 years. The strongest argument in favor of preserving ONE_PLY comes from @locutus: “If we use par example ONE_PLY=256 the parameter space is increases by the factor 256. So it seems very unlikely that the optimal setting is in the subspace of ONE_PLY=1.” There is a strong theoretical impediment to fractional depth systems: the transposition table uses depth to determine when a stored result is good enough to supply an answer for a current search. If you have fractional depths, then different pathways to the position can be at fractionally different depths. In the end, there are three separate times when a proposal to remove ONE_PLY was defeated by the suggestion to “give it a few more months.” So… it seems like time to remove this distraction from the community. See the pull request here: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2289
2019-09-28 14:27:23 -06:00
assert(d > 0);
stage = (pos.checkers() ? EVASION_TT : MAIN_TT) +
!(ttm && pos.pseudo_legal(ttm));
}
/// MovePicker constructor for quiescence search
MovePicker::MovePicker(const Position& p, Move ttm, Depth d, const ButterflyHistory* mh,
const CapturePieceToHistory* cph, const PieceToHistory** ch, Square rs)
: pos(p), mainHistory(mh), captureHistory(cph), continuationHistory(ch), ttMove(ttm), recaptureSquare(rs), depth(d) {
Eliminate ONE_PLY Simplification that eliminates ONE_PLY, based on a suggestion in the forum that support for fractional plies has never been used, and @mcostalba's openness to the idea of eliminating it. We lose a little bit of type safety by making Depth an integer, but in return we simplify the code in search.cpp quite significantly. No functional change ------------------------------------------ The argument favoring eliminating ONE_PLY: * The term “ONE_PLY” comes up in a lot of forum posts (474 to date) https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/fishcooking/ONE_PLY%7Csort:relevance * There is occasionally a commit that breaks invariance of the code with respect to ONE_PLY https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/fishcooking/ONE_PLY%7Csort:date/fishcooking/ZIPdYj6k0fk/KdNGcPWeBgAJ * To prevent such commits, there is a Travis CI hack that doubles ONE_PLY and rechecks bench * Sustaining ONE_PLY has, alas, not resulted in any improvements to the engine, despite many individuals testing many experiments over 5 years. The strongest argument in favor of preserving ONE_PLY comes from @locutus: “If we use par example ONE_PLY=256 the parameter space is increases by the factor 256. So it seems very unlikely that the optimal setting is in the subspace of ONE_PLY=1.” There is a strong theoretical impediment to fractional depth systems: the transposition table uses depth to determine when a stored result is good enough to supply an answer for a current search. If you have fractional depths, then different pathways to the position can be at fractionally different depths. In the end, there are three separate times when a proposal to remove ONE_PLY was defeated by the suggestion to “give it a few more months.” So… it seems like time to remove this distraction from the community. See the pull request here: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2289
2019-09-28 14:27:23 -06:00
assert(d <= 0);
stage = (pos.checkers() ? EVASION_TT : QSEARCH_TT) +
!( ttm
&& (pos.checkers() || depth > DEPTH_QS_RECAPTURES || to_sq(ttm) == recaptureSquare)
&& pos.pseudo_legal(ttm));
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
}
/// MovePicker constructor for ProbCut: we generate captures with SEE greater
/// than or equal to the given threshold.
MovePicker::MovePicker(const Position& p, Move ttm, Value th, const CapturePieceToHistory* cph)
: pos(p), captureHistory(cph), ttMove(ttm), threshold(th) {
assert(!pos.checkers());
stage = PROBCUT_TT + !(ttm && pos.capture(ttm)
&& pos.pseudo_legal(ttm)
&& pos.see_ge(ttm, threshold));
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
}
/// MovePicker::score() assigns a numerical value to each move in a list, used
/// for sorting. Captures are ordered by Most Valuable Victim (MVV), preferring
/// captures with a good history. Quiets moves are ordered using the histories.
template<GenType Type>
void MovePicker::score() {
static_assert(Type == CAPTURES || Type == QUIETS || Type == EVASIONS, "Wrong type");
for (auto& m : *this)
if constexpr (Type == CAPTURES)
m.value = int(PieceValue[MG][pos.piece_on(to_sq(m))]) * 6
+ (*captureHistory)[pos.moved_piece(m)][to_sq(m)][type_of(pos.piece_on(to_sq(m)))];
else if constexpr (Type == QUIETS)
m.value = (*mainHistory)[pos.side_to_move()][from_to(m)]
+ 2 * (*continuationHistory[0])[pos.moved_piece(m)][to_sq(m)]
+ (*continuationHistory[1])[pos.moved_piece(m)][to_sq(m)]
+ (*continuationHistory[3])[pos.moved_piece(m)][to_sq(m)]
+ (*continuationHistory[5])[pos.moved_piece(m)][to_sq(m)]
+ (ply < MAX_LPH ? 6 * (*lowPlyHistory)[ply][from_to(m)] : 0);
else // Type == EVASIONS
{
if (pos.capture(m))
m.value = PieceValue[MG][pos.piece_on(to_sq(m))]
- Value(type_of(pos.moved_piece(m)));
else
m.value = (*mainHistory)[pos.side_to_move()][from_to(m)]
+ 2 * (*continuationHistory[0])[pos.moved_piece(m)][to_sq(m)]
- (1 << 28);
}
2008-08-31 23:59:13 -06:00
}
/// MovePicker::select() returns the next move satisfying a predicate function.
/// It never returns the TT move.
template<MovePicker::PickType T, typename Pred>
Move MovePicker::select(Pred filter) {
while (cur < endMoves)
{
if (T == Best)
std::swap(*cur, *std::max_element(cur, endMoves));
if (*cur != ttMove && filter())
return *cur++;
cur++;
}
return MOVE_NONE;
}
/// MovePicker::next_move() is the most important method of the MovePicker class. It
/// returns a new pseudo-legal move every time it is called until there are no more
/// moves left, picking the move with the highest score from a list of generated moves.
Move MovePicker::next_move(bool skipQuiets) {
top:
switch (stage) {
case MAIN_TT:
case EVASION_TT:
case QSEARCH_TT:
case PROBCUT_TT:
++stage;
return ttMove;
case CAPTURE_INIT:
case PROBCUT_INIT:
case QCAPTURE_INIT:
cur = endBadCaptures = moves;
endMoves = generate<CAPTURES>(pos, cur);
score<CAPTURES>();
++stage;
goto top;
case GOOD_CAPTURE:
if (select<Best>([&](){
return pos.see_ge(*cur, Value(-69 * cur->value / 1024)) ?
// Move losing capture to endBadCaptures to be tried later
true : (*endBadCaptures++ = *cur, false); }))
return *(cur - 1);
// Prepare the pointers to loop over the refutations array
cur = std::begin(refutations);
endMoves = std::end(refutations);
// If the countermove is the same as a killer, skip it
if ( refutations[0].move == refutations[2].move
|| refutations[1].move == refutations[2].move)
--endMoves;
++stage;
[[fallthrough]];
case REFUTATION:
if (select<Next>([&](){ return *cur != MOVE_NONE
&& !pos.capture(*cur)
&& pos.pseudo_legal(*cur); }))
return *(cur - 1);
++stage;
[[fallthrough]];
case QUIET_INIT:
if (!skipQuiets)
{
cur = endBadCaptures;
endMoves = generate<QUIETS>(pos, cur);
score<QUIETS>();
partial_insertion_sort(cur, endMoves, -3000 * depth);
}
Bonus for double attacks on unsupported pawns This is a functional change that rewards double attacks on an unsupported pawns. STC (non-functional difference) LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50] Total: 83276 W: 18981 L: 18398 D: 45897 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d0970500ebc5925cf0a77d4 LTC (incomplete looping version) LLR: 0.50 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50] Total: 82999 W: 14244 L: 13978 D: 54777 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d0a8d480ebc5925cf0a8d58 LTC (completed non-looping version). LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,3.50] Total: 223381 W: 38323 L: 37512 D: 147546 http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5d0e80510ebc5925cf0ad320 Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2205 Bench 3633546 ---------------------------------- Comments by Alain SAVARD: interesting result ! I would have expected that search would resolve such positions correctly on the very next move. This is not a very common pattern, and when it happens, it will quickly disappear. So I'm quite surprised that it passed LTC. I would be even more surprised if this would resist a simplification. Anyway, let's try to imagine a few cases. a) If you have White d5 f5 against Black e6, and White to move last move by Black was probably a capture on e6 and White is about to recapture on e6 b) If you have White d5 f5 against e6, and Black to move last move by White was possibly a capture on d5 or f5 or the pawn on e6 was pinned or could not move for some reason. and white wants to blast open the position and just pushed d4-d5 or f4-f5 Some possible follow-ups a) Motif is so rare that the popcount() can be safely replaced with a bool() But this would not pass a SPRT[0,4], So try a simplification with bool() and also without the & ~theirAttacks b) If it works, we probably can simply have this in the loop if (lever) score += S(0, 20); c) remove all this and tweak something in search for pawn captures (priority, SEE, extension,..)
2019-06-27 01:45:53 -06:00
++stage;
[[fallthrough]];
case QUIET:
if ( !skipQuiets
&& select<Next>([&](){return *cur != refutations[0].move
&& *cur != refutations[1].move
&& *cur != refutations[2].move;}))
return *(cur - 1);
// Prepare the pointers to loop over the bad captures
cur = moves;
endMoves = endBadCaptures;
++stage;
[[fallthrough]];
case BAD_CAPTURE:
return select<Next>([](){ return true; });
case EVASION_INIT:
cur = moves;
endMoves = generate<EVASIONS>(pos, cur);
score<EVASIONS>();
++stage;
[[fallthrough]];
case EVASION:
return select<Best>([](){ return true; });
case PROBCUT:
return select<Best>([&](){ return pos.see_ge(*cur, threshold); });
case QCAPTURE:
if (select<Best>([&](){ return depth > DEPTH_QS_RECAPTURES
|| to_sq(*cur) == recaptureSquare; }))
return *(cur - 1);
// If we did not find any move and we do not try checks, we have finished
if (depth != DEPTH_QS_CHECKS)
return MOVE_NONE;
++stage;
[[fallthrough]];
case QCHECK_INIT:
cur = moves;
endMoves = generate<QUIET_CHECKS>(pos, cur);
++stage;
[[fallthrough]];
case QCHECK:
return select<Next>([](){ return true; });
}
assert(false);
return MOVE_NONE; // Silence warning
}
} // namespace Stockfish