Rise contempt when in advantage
This is a very discussed patch with many argumentations pro and against. The fact is it passed both STC: LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50] Total: 16305 W: 3001 L: 2855 D: 10449 And LTC LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00] Total: 34273 W: 5180 L: 4931 D: 24162 Although it is true that a correct test should include foreign engines, we commit it anyhow so people can test it out in the wild, under broader conditions. bench: 7384368pull/358/head^2
parent
223ebe7b40
commit
ef43e6b05d
|
@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ namespace Search {
|
|||
Color RootColor;
|
||||
Time::point SearchTime;
|
||||
StateStackPtr SetupStates;
|
||||
Value Contempt[2]; // [bestValue > VALUE_DRAW]
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
using std::string;
|
||||
|
@ -185,9 +186,8 @@ void Search::think() {
|
|||
RootColor = RootPos.side_to_move();
|
||||
TimeMgr.init(Limits, RootPos.game_ply(), RootColor);
|
||||
|
||||
int cf = Options["Contempt Factor"] * PawnValueEg / 100; // From centipawns
|
||||
DrawValue[ RootColor] = VALUE_DRAW - Value(cf);
|
||||
DrawValue[~RootColor] = VALUE_DRAW + Value(cf);
|
||||
Contempt[0] = Options["Contempt Factor"] * PawnValueEg / 100; // From centipawns
|
||||
Contempt[1] = (Options["Contempt Factor"] + 12) * PawnValueEg / 100;
|
||||
|
||||
if (RootMoves.empty())
|
||||
{
|
||||
|
@ -339,6 +339,9 @@ namespace {
|
|||
{
|
||||
bestValue = search<Root>(pos, ss, alpha, beta, depth * ONE_PLY, false);
|
||||
|
||||
DrawValue[ RootColor] = VALUE_DRAW - Contempt[bestValue > VALUE_DRAW];
|
||||
DrawValue[~RootColor] = VALUE_DRAW + Contempt[bestValue > VALUE_DRAW];
|
||||
|
||||
// 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
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue