Exclude doubly protected by pawns squares when calculating attackers on
king ring. Idea of this patch is not to count attackers if they attack
only squares that are protected by two pawns.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 70040 W: 15476 L: 15002 D: 39562
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c0354860ebc5902bcee1106
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 16530 W: 2795 L: 2607 D: 11128
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c0385080ebc5902bcee14b5
This is third king safety patch in recent times so we probably need
retuning of king safety parameters.
Bench: 3057978
Tropism in kingdanger was simplified away in this pull request #1821.
This patch reintroduces tropism in kingdanger with using quadratic scaling.
Passed STC http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf7c1b10ebc5902bced1f8f
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 52803 W: 11835 L: 11442 D: 29526
Passed LTC http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf816e90ebc5902bced24f1
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 17204 W: 2988 L: 2795 D: 11421
How do we continue from there?
I've recently tried to introduce tropism difference term in kingdanger which
passed STC 6 times but failed LTC all the time. Maybe using quadratic scaling
for it will also be helpful.
Bench 4041387
A recent LTC tuning session by @candirufish showed this term decreasing significantly. It appears that it can be removed altogether without significant Elo loss.
I also thank @GuardianRM, whose attempt to remove tropism from king danger inspired this one.
After this PR is merged, my next step will be to attempt to tune the coefficients of this new, simplified kingDanger calculation.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 12518 W: 2795 L: 2656 D: 7067
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5befadda0ebc595e0ae3a289
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 164771 W: 26463 L: 26566 D: 111742
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5befcca70ebc595e0ae3a343
LTC 2, rebased on Stockfish 10 beta:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 75226 W: 12563 L: 12529 D: 50134
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf2e8910ebc5902bcecb919
Bench: 3412071
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 51883 W: 11297 L: 10915 D: 29671
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf1e2ee0ebc595e0ae3cacd
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 15859 W: 2752 L: 2565 D: 10542
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf337980ebc5902bcecbf62
Notes:
(1) The bonus value has not been carefully tested, so it may be possible
to find slightly better values.
(2) Plan is to now try adding similar restriction for pawns. I wanted to
include that as part of this pull request, but I was advised to do it as
two separate pull requests. STC is currently running here, but may not add
enough value to pass green.
Bench: 3679086
Preparation commit for the upcoming Stockfish 10 version, giving a chance to catch last minute feature bugs and evaluation regression during the one-week code freeze period. Also changing the copyright dates to include 2019.
No functional change
STC:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 84697 W: 18173 L: 18009 D: 48515
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bea366f0ebc595e0ae34793
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 157625 W: 25533 L: 24893 D: 107199
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5be8b69e0ebc595e0ae33024
Personally, I feel like SF has been tuned to death recently and that we
need to step away from existing-parameter tunes for a bit and focus more
on new ideas. I don't really think there's much more ELO in these tunes
(for now). For me at least, this was the last existing-parameter tune I'll
be running for quite a while. Cheers!
Bench: 3572567
It does not appear to be not necessary or advantageous to
conditionally initialize kingRing[Us] or kingAttackersCount[Them],
so the 'else' can be removed.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 22873 W: 4923 L: 4804 D: 13146
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5be9a8270ebc595e0ae33c7e
No functional change
We don't need to pass the king square as an explicit parameter to the functions
king_safety() and do_king_safety() since we already pass in the position.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 69686 W: 14894 L: 14866 D: 39926
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5be84ac20ebc595e0ae3283c
No functional change.
We calculate tropism as a sum of two factors. The first is the number of squares in our kingFlank and Camp that are attacked by the enemy; the second is number of these squares that are attacked twice. Prior to this commit, we excluded squares we defended with pawns from this second value, but this appears unnecessary. (Doubly-attacked squares near our king are still dangerous.) The removal of this exclusion is a possible small Elo gain at STC (estimated +1.59) and almost exactly neutral at LTC (estimated +0.04).
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 20942 W: 4550 L: 4427 D: 11965
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5be4e0ae0ebc595e0ae308a0
LTC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 56941 W: 9172 L: 9108 D: 38661
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5be4ec340ebc595e0ae30938
Bench: 3813986
This PR is a combination of two unrelated [0, 4] patches that appeared promising
but not quite strong enough to pass on their own. The combination initially failed
STC with a positive score after a long run, and the subsequent speculative LTC test
passed.
* tweak_threatOnQueen4 :
Increase the middlegame components of ThreatByMinor[QUEEN]
and ThreatByRook[QUEEN] by 15 each. Bryan's (@crossbr) analysis of CCC Bonus Game 10
inspired several tests on penalizing a queen with limited safe mobility. While
attempting to implement this idea, I noticed that when I did not include the queen's
current square in the calculations, the Elo gains seemed to vanish--and only then did
I have the idea to revisit ThreatByMinor[QUEEN] and ThreatByRook[QUEEN], adding a
corresponding value to each. Without Bryan's work, this test would never have been
submitted. I would also like to recognize the efforts and contributions of @SFisGOD,
who also vigorously worked on this idea.
* Use pure static eval for null move pruning :
This idea was directly re-purposed from a promising test by Jerry Donald Watson
(@jerrydonaldwatson) in August. It was also independently developed and tested by
Stefan Geschwentner (@locutus2) previously.
Thank you all!
STC (failed yellow):
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 83913 W: 17986 L: 17825 D: 48102
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bbc59300ebc592439f76aa5
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 137198 W: 22351 L: 21772 D: 93075
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bbce35f0ebc592439f77639
Bench: 4312846
a) Reduce PSQT values along the long diagonals on non-central squares
and increase the LongDiagonal bonus accordingly. The effect is to penalise
bishops on the long diagonal which can not "see" the 2 central squares.
The "good" bishops still have more or less the same bonus as current master.
b) For a bishop on a central square, because of the "| s" term in the code,
the LongDiagonalBonus was always given. So while being there, remove the "| s"
and compensate the central Bishop PSQT accordingly.
Passed STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 44498 W: 9658 L: 9323 D: 25517
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b8992770ebc592cf2748942
Passed LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 63092 W: 10324 L: 9975 D: 42793
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b89a17a0ebc592cf2748b59
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1760
bench: 4693901
It looks like PawnsOnBothFlanks can be removed from initiative().
A barrage of tests seem to confirm that the adjustment to -110
does not gain elo to offset any potential loss by removing
PawnsOnBothFlanks.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 22014 W: 4760 L: 4639 D: 12615
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b7f50cc0ebc5902bdbb3a3e
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40561 W: 6667 L: 6577 D: 27317
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b801f9f0ebc5902bdbb4467
The barrage of 0,4 tests on the -136 value are in my ps_tunetests branch.
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/user/protonspring
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1751
Bench: 4413173
-------------
How to continue from there?
The fact that endgames with all the pawns on only one flank are
drawish is a well-known chess idea, so it seems quite strange that
this can be removed so easily without losing Elo.
In the past there had been attempts to improve on PawnsOnBothFlanks
with similar concepts (for instance using the pawn span value), but
the tests were at best neutral. Maybe Stockfish is now mature enough
that these refined ideas would work to replace PawnsOnBothFlanks?
Currently, we first calculate some bitboards at the top of Evaluation::space()
and then check whether we actually need them. Invert the ordering. Of course this
does not make a difference in current master because the constexpr bitboard
calculations are in fact done at compile time by any decent compiler, but I find
my version a bit healthier since it will always meet or exceed current implementation
even if we eventually change the spaceMask to something not contsexpr.
No functional change.
This patch adds the tropism measure as a new term in the king danger variable.
Since we then trasform this variable as a Score via a quadratic formula, the
main effect of the patch is the positive correlation of the tropism measure
with some checks and pins information already present in the king danger code.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 6805 W: 1597 L: 1431 D: 3777
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b5df8d10ebc5902bdb91699
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 32872 W: 5782 L: 5523 D: 21567
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b5e08d80ebc5902bdb917ee
How to continue from there?
• it may be possible to use CloseEnemies=S(7,0)
• we may want to try incorporating other strategic features in the quadratic
king danger.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1717
Bench: 5591925
The previous commit wouldn't compile on the Microsoft Virtual Studio C++ compiler. So use a more compatible style for the same idea (which we already use in numerous places of evaluate.cpp, for instance in line 563).
Under the Clang compiler, both versions generate exactly the same machine code (same md5 signatures for the two binaries).
No functional change.
Remove a popcount for HinderPassedPawn, and compensate by doubling
the bonus from S(4,0) to to S(8,0).
Maybe it was pure luck, but we got the idea of this Elo gaining patch by
seing the simplification attempt by Mike Whiteley in pull request #1703.
This suggests that whenever we have a passed evaluation simplification,
we should consider the possibility that the master bonus has become
slightly out of tune with time, and we should try a few Elo gaining [0..4]
tests by hand-tuning the master bonus.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 19136 W: 4388 L: 4147 D: 10601
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b59be6f0ebc5902bdb8ac06
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 99382 W: 17324 L: 16843 D: 65215
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b59d2410ebc5902bdb8afa8
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1710
Bench: 4688817
This tweak excludes files D and E from the KingFlank bitboard when our
king is on the A or H files respectively. As far as I can tell, this
affects two things: the calculation for CloseEnemies and PawnlessFlank.
Aside from filtering out slightly less relevant attacks in the flank,
I suspect this helps with king prophylaxis, avoiding attacks and moving
towards the center when the pawns start to come off.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 56755 W: 12881 L: 12489 D: 31385
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b58a94c0ebc5902bdb88c72
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 130205 W: 22536 L: 21957 D: 85712
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b58b7580ebc5902bdb89029
How to continue: Tweaking the two bonuses mentioned might give some
gain, although as far as I can tell, CloseEnemies is very sensitive to
even small changes.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1705
Bench: 5026009
When evaluating threat by safe pawn and pawn push the same expression is used.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 19444 W: 4540 L: 4309 D: 10595
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b5a6e150ebc5902bdb8c5c0
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1709
No functional change.
--------------------
Comments by Stéphane Nicolet:
I don't measure any speed-up on my system, with two parallel benches at depth 22:
Total time (ms) : 74989
Nodes searched : 144830258
Nodes/second : 1931353
master
Total time (ms) : 75341
Nodes searched : 144830258
Nodes/second : 1922329
testedpatch
And anyway, like Stefan Geschwentner, I don't think that a 0.3% speed-up would
be enough to pass a [0..5] LTC test -- as a first approximation, we have this
rule of thumb that 1% speed-up gives about 1 Elo point.
However, considering the facts that the reformatting by itself is interesting,
that this is your first green test and that you played by the rules by running
the SPRT[0..5] test before opening the pull request, I will commit the change.
I will only take the liberty to change the occurrences of safe in lines 590 and
591 to b, to make the code more similar to lines 584 and 585.
So approved, and congrats :-)
This patch implements some idea by Alain Savard and Mike Whiteley taken from the perpertual renaming/reformatting thread.
This is a pure code cleaning patch (so no change in functionality), but I use it as a pretext to correct the bogus bench number that I introduced in the previous commit.
Bench: 4413383
There seems to be some strange interaction between Overload and Connectivity.
Overload encourages us to not have too many defended and attacked pieces,
as this may expose us to various tactics. This feels somewhat like it is in
conflict with Connectivity, where pieces are defended preemptively.
Here I take the "pick one or the other" approach and just remove connectivity,
while strengthening the effect of Overload to compensate. The reasoning is that
if we defend our pieces preemptively, then it does get attacked, we want to do
something about it so we don't get penalized by Overload. On the other
hand, if it doesn't get attacked, then there's no need to defend it.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 27734 W: 6174 L: 6064 D: 15496
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b5073bd0ebc5902bdb7ba5c
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 51606 W: 8897 L: 8827 D: 33882
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b50aa900ebc5902bdb7bf29
Bench: 4658006
After some recent big tuning session, the values for King Protector were
simplified to only be used on minor pieces. This patch tries to further
simplify by just using a single value, since current S(6,5) and S(5,6)
are close to each other. The value S(6,6) ended up passing, although
S(5,5) was also tried and failed STC.
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 14261 W: 3288 L: 3151 D: 7822
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b4ccdf50ebc5902bdb77f65
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 19606 W: 3396 L: 3273 D: 12937
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b4ce4280ebc5902bdb7803b
Bench: 5448998
Extend the bonus for Overload to cases where our side
has more than one attacker to a non pawn piece.
Based on an idea by Bryan in the forum. For instance,
now black gets the overload bonus in this position:
8/5R1k/6pb/p6p/P1N4P/1Pp5/2K3P1/2N4r b - - 6 46
because two black pieces are attacking the knight on c1
that is defended only by the king.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 57446 W: 12762 L: 12711 D: 31973
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b4ca9970ebc5902bdb77a88
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 42113 W: 7295 L: 7209 D: 27609
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b4ccea00ebc5902bdb77f69
Bench: 4667263
Various king and pawn eval values tuned after 2 million games. Rounding
slightly adjusted.
LTC: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b477a260ebc5978f4be3ed4
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 32783 W: 5852 L: 5588 D: 21343
STC: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b472d420ebc5978f4be3e4d
LLR: 3.23 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 44380 W: 10201 L: 9841 D: 24338
I think I reached the limit of the fishtest framework. It frequently
crashed at 2 million games already. The small values also moved a lot
throughout the entire tuning session though with smaller margin. The
passed danger and close enemies values seems the most sensitive (changing
close enemies alone to 6 failed before but now it passes), whether or not
they are close to optimal I don't know, but it seems some parameters are
also correlated to others.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1670
bench: 5103722
In the current master, ThreatByKing is an array of two Scores, one for
when we have a single attack and one for when we have many. The latter
case is very rarely called during bench and was recently given a strange
negative value during a tuning run, as pointed out by @candirufish on
commit efd4ca2. Here, we simplify away this second case entirely, and
increase the remaining ThreatByKing to compensate.
Although I derived the parameter tweak independently, with the goal of
preserving the same average bonus, I later noticed that a very similar
Score had already been derived by an ongoing SPSA tuning session.
I therefore recognize @candirufish for first discovering these values.
I would also like to thank @Rocky640 for valuable feedback that pointed
me in the direction of ThreatByKing.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 7677 W: 1772 L: 1623 D: 4282
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b3db0320ebc5902b9ffe97a
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 108031 W: 18329 L: 18350 D: 71352
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b3dbf4b0ebc5902b9ffe9db
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1666
Bench: 4678861
Make sure each piece is not scored more than once as a passed pawn "hinderer",
by scoring only the blockers along the passed pawn path. Inspired by TCEC Game 29.
Passed STC as a simplification
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b3016d00ebc5902b2e58552
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 75388 W: 16656 L: 16641 D: 42091
Passed LTC as a simplification
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b302ed90ebc5902b2e587fc
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 49157 W: 8460 L: 8386 D: 32311
Current master was also counting the number of attacks along a passed pawn path,
which might be misleading:
a) a defender might be counted many times for the same pawn path. For example a
White rook on a1 attacking a black pawn on a7 would score the bonus * 6 but
would be probably better placed on a8
b) a defender might be counted on different pawn paths and might be overloaded. For
example a Ke4 or Qe4 against pawns on d6 and f6 would score the bonus * 6.
Counting each blocker or attacker only once is more complicated, and does not help
either: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b2ff1cb0ebc5902b2e582b2
After this small simplification, there might be ways to increase the HinderPassedPawn
penalty.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1661
Bench: 4520519
[STC](http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b2614000ebc5902b8d17193)
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17733 W: 3996 L: 3866 D: 9871
[LTC](http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5b264d0f0ebc5902b8d17206)
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 55524 W: 9535 L: 9471 D: 36518
Use pawn count scaling also for opposite bishops endings with additional material, with a slope of 2 instead of 7. This simplifies slightly the code.
This PR is a functionally equivalent refactoring of the version which was submitted.
Four versions tried, 2 passed both STC and LTC. I picked the one which seemed more promising at LTC.
Slope 4 passed STC (-0.54 Elo), LTC not attempted
Slope 3 passed STC (+2.51 Elo), LTC (-0.44 Elo)
Slope 2 passed STC (+2.09 Elo), LTC (+0.04 Elo)
Slope 1 passed STC (+0.90 Elo), failed LTC (-3.40 Elo)
Bench: 4761613
Use the whole kingRing for pawn attackers instead of only the squares directly
around the king. This tends to give quite a lot more kingAttackersCount, so to
compensate and to avoid raising the king danger too fast we lower the values
in the KingAttackWeights array a little bit.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 51892 W: 10723 L: 10369 D: 30800
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af6d4dd0ebc5968e652428e
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 24536 W: 3737 L: 3515 D: 17284
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af709890ebc5968e65242ac
Credits to user @xoroshiro for the idea of using the kingRing for pawn attackers.
How to continue? It seems that the KingAttackWeights[] array stores values
which are quite Elo-sensitive, yet they have not been tuned with SPSA recently.
There might be easy Elo points to get there.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1597
Bench: 5282815
Simplification: in king danger, include all blockers and not only pinned
pieces, since blockers enemy pieces can result in discovered checks which
are also bad.
STC http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af35f9f0ebc5968e6523fe9
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 145781 W: 29368 L: 29478 D: 86935
LTC http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af3cb430ebc5968e652401f
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 76398 W: 11272 L: 11232 D: 53894
I also incorrectly scheduled STC with [0,5] which it failed.
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5af283c00ebc5968e6523f33
LLR: -2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 12338 W: 2451 L: 2522 D: 7365
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1593
bench: 4698290
----------------------------------------
Thanks to @vondele and @Rocky640 for a cleaner version of the patch,
and the following comments!
> Most of the pinned, (or for this pull request, blocking) squares were
> already computed in the unsafeChecks, the only missing squares being:
>
> a) squares attacked by a Queen which are occupied by friendly piece
> or "unsafe". Note that adding such squares never passed SPRT[0,5].
>
> b) squares not in mobilityArea[Us].
>
> There is a strong relationship between the blockers and the unsafeChecks,
> but the bitboard unsafeChecks is still useful when the checker is not
> aligned with the king, and the checking square is occupied by friendly
> piece or is "unsafe". This is always the case for the Knight.
This is a further step in the long quest for a simple way of determining
scale factors for the endgame.
Here we remove the artificial restriction in evaluate_scale_factor()
based on endgame score. Also SCALE_FACTOR_ONEPAWN can be simplified
away. The latter is a small non functional simplification with respect
to the version that was testedin the framework, verified on bench with
depth 22 for good measure.
Passed STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 49438 W: 9999 L: 9930 D: 29509
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ae20c8b0ebc5963175205c8
Passed LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 101445 W: 15113 L: 15110 D: 71222
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ae2a0560ebc5902a1998986
How to continue from there?
Maybe the general case could be scaled with pawns from both colors
without losing Elo. If that is the case, then this could be merged
somehow with the scaling in evaluate_initiative(), which also uses
a additive malus down when the number of pawns in the position goes
down.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1570
Bench: 5254862
Queen was recently excluded from the mobility area of friendly minor
pieces. Exclude queen also from the mobility area of friendly majors too.
Run as a simplification:
STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ade396f0ebc59602d053742
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 46972 W: 9511 L: 9437 D: 28024
LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ade64b50ebc5949f20a24d3
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 66855 W: 10157 L: 10105 D: 46593
How to continue from there?
The mobilityArea is used in various places of the evaluation as a
soft proxy for "not attacked by the opponent pawns". Now that the
mobility area is getting smaller and smaller, it may be worth to
hunt for Elo gains by trying the more direct ~attackedBy[Them][PAWN]
instead of mobilityArea[Us] in these places.
Bench: 4650572
We remove an unnecessary condition in the definition of safe squares
in the space evaluation. Only the squares which are occupied by our
pawns or attacked by our opponent's pawns are now excluded.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 21096 W: 4321 L: 4199 D: 12576
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5acbf7510ebc59547e537d4e
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 23437 W: 3577 L: 3460 D: 16400
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5acc0f750ebc59547e537d6a
It may be possible to further refine the definition of such safe squares.
Bench: 5351765
This patch applies a S(10, 5) bonus for every square that is:
- Occupied by an enemy piece which is not a pawn
- Attacked exactly once by our pieces
- Defended exactly once by enemy pieces
The idea is that these pieces must be defended. Their defenders have
dramatically limited mobility, and they are vulnerable to our future
attack.
As with connectivity, there are probably many more tests to be run in
this area. In particular:
- I believe @snicolet's queen overload tests have demonstrated a potential
need for a queen overload bonus above and beyond this one; however, the
conditions for "overload" in this patch are different (excluding pieces
we attack twice). My next test after this is (hopefully) merged will be
to intersect the Bitboard I define here with the enemy's queen attacks and
attempt to give additional bonus.
- Perhaps we should exclude pieces attacked by pawns--can pawns really be
overloaded? Should they have the same weight, or less? This didn't work
with a previous version, but it could work with this one.
- More generally, different pieces may need more or less bonus. We could
change bonuses based on what type of enemy piece is being overloaded, what
type of friendly piece is attacking, and/or what type of piece is being
defended by the overloaded piece and attacked by us, or any intersection
of these three. For example, here attacked/defended pawns are excluded,
but they're not totally worthless targets, and could be added again with
a smaller bonus.
- This list is by no means exhaustive.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 17439 W: 3599 L: 3390 D: 10450
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac78a2e0ebc59435923735e
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 43304 W: 6533 L: 6256 D: 30515
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac7a1d80ebc59435923736f
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1533
Bench: 5248871
----------------
This is my first time opening a PR, so I apologize if there are errors.
There are too many people to thank since I submitted my first test just
over a month ago. Thank you all for the warm welcome and here is to more
green patches!
In particular, I would like to thank:
- @crossbr, whose comment in a FishCooking thread first inspired me to
consider the overloading of pieces other than queens,
- @snicolet, whose queen overload tests inspired this one and served as
the base of my first overload attempts,
- @protonspring, whose connectivity tests inspired this one and who provided
much of the feedback needed to take this from red to green,
- @vondele, who kindly corrected me when I submitted a bad LTC test,
- @Rocky640, who has helped me over and over again in the past month.
Thank you all!
In master, we already remove the King from the mobility area of minor pieces
because the King simply stands in the way of other pieces, and since opponent
cannot capture the King, any piece which "protects" the King cannot recapture.
Similarly, this patch introduces the idea that it is rarely a need for a Queen
to be "protected" by a minor (unless it is attacked only by a Queen, in fact).
We used to have a LoosePiece bonus, and in a similar vein the Queen was excluded
from that penalty.
Idea came when reviewing an old game of Kholmov. He was a very good midgame
player, but in the opening his misplace his Queen (and won in the end :-) :
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1134645
Both white queen moves 10.Qd3 and 13.Qb3 are in the way of some minor piece.
I would prefer to not give a bishop mobility bonus at move 10 for the square d3,
or later a knight mobility bonus at move 13 for the square b3. And the textbook
move is 19.Qe3! which prepares 20.Nb3. This short game sample shows how much a
queen can be "in the way" of minor pieces.
STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac2c15f0ebc591746423fa3
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 22066 W: 4561 L: 4330 D: 13175
LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac2d6500ebc591746423faf
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 25871 W: 3953 L: 3738 D: 18180
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1532
Ideas for future work in this area:
• tweak some more mobility areas for other piece type.
• construct a notion of global mobility for the whole piece set.
• bad bishops.
Bench: 4989125
Simplify ThreatBySafePawn evaluation by removing the 'if (weak)' speed
optimization check from threats evaluation. This is a non functional
change as it removes just a speed optimization conditional which was
probably useful before but does no longer provide benefits. This section
section had a few more lines not long ago, with ThreatByHangingPawn and
a loop through the threatened pieces, but now there is not much left.
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 47775 W: 9696 L: 9624 D: 28455
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac298910ebc591746423f8b
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1531
Non functional change.
When we reach a position with only two opposite colored bishops and
one pawn on the board, current master would give it a scale factor
of 9/64=0.14 in about one position out of 7200, and a scale factor
of 0.0 in the 7199 others. The patch gives a scale factor of 0.0 in
100% of the cases.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 55845 W: 11467 L: 11410 D: 32968
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5abc585f0ebc5902926cf15e
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 11915 W: 1852 L: 1719 D: 8344
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5abc7f750ebc5902926cf18c
We also have exhaustive coverage analysis of this patch effect by
Alain Savard, comparing the perfect evaluation given by the Syzygy
tablebase with the heuristic play after this patch for the set of
all legal positions of the KBPKP endgame with opposite bishops, in
the comments thread for this pull request:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1520
Alain's conclusion:
> According to this definition and the data, I consider this PR is
> identical to master to "solve for draw" and slightly better than
> master to solve earlier for "wins".
Note: this patch is a side effect of an ongoing effort to improve
the evaluation of positions involving a pair of opposite bishops.
See the GitHub diff of this LTC test which almost passed at sprt[0..5]
for a discussion:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab9030b0ebc5902932cbf93
No functional change (at small bench depths)
We now use per-thread dynamic contempt. This patch has the following
effects:
* for Threads=1: **non-functional**
* for Threads>1:
* with MultiPV=1: **no regression, little to no ELO gain**
* with MultiPV>1: **clear improvement over master**
First, I tried testing at standard MultiPV=1 play with [0,5] bounds.
This yielded 2 yellow and 1 red test:
5+0.05, Threads=5:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 82689 W: 16439 L: 16190 D: 50060
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa93a5a0ebc5902952892e6
5+0.05, Threads=8:
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 27164 W: 4974 L: 4983 D: 17207
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab2639b0ebc5902a6fbefd5
5+0.5, Threads=16:
LLR: -2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 41396 W: 7127 L: 7082 D: 27187
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab124220ebc59029516cb62
Then, I tested with Skill Level=17 (implicitly MutliPV=4), showing
a clear improvement:
5+0.05, Threads=5:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 3498 W: 1316 L: 1135 D: 1047
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab4b6580ebc5902932aeca2
Next, I tested the patch with MultiPV=1 again, this time checking for
non-regression ([-3, 1]):
5+0.5, Threads=5:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 65575 W: 12786 L: 12745 D: 40044
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab4e8500ebc5902932aecb3
Finally, I ran some tests with fixed number of games, checking if
reverting dynamic contempt gains more elo with Skill Level=17 (i.e.
MultiPV) than applying the "prevScore" fix and this patch. These tests
showed, that this patch gains 15 ELO when playing with Skill Level=17:
5+0.05, Threads=3, "revert dynamic contempt" vs. "WITHOUT this patch":
ELO: -11.43 +-4.1 (95%) LOS: 0.0%
Total: 20000 W: 7085 L: 7743 D: 5172
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab636450ebc590295d88536
5+0.05, Threads=3, "revert dynamic contempt" vs. "WITH this patch":
ELO: -26.42 +-4.1 (95%) LOS: 0.0%
Total: 20000 W: 6661 L: 8179 D: 5160
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab62e680ebc590295d88524
---
***FAQ***
**Why should this be commited?**
I believe that the gain for multi-thread MultiPV search is a sufficient
justification for this otherwise neutral change. I also believe this
implementation of dynamic contempt is more logical, although this may
be just my opinion.
**Why is per-thread contempt better at MultiPV?**
A likely explanation for the gain in MultiPV mode is that during
search each thread independently switches between rootMoves and via
the shared contempt score skews each other's evaluation.
**Why were the tests done with Skill Level=17?**
This was originally suggested by @Hanamuke and the idea is that with
Skill Level Stockfish sometimes plays also moves it thinks are slightly
sub-optimal and thus the quality of all moves offered by the MultiPV
search is checked by the test.
**Why are the ELO differences so huge?**
This is most likely because of the nature of Skill Level mode --
since it slower and weaker than normal mode, bugs in evaluation have
much greater effect.
---
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1515.
No functional change -- in single thread mode.
Make kingRing always eight squares, extending the bitboard to the
F file if the king is on the H file, and to the C file if the king
is on the A file. This may deal with cases where Stockfish (like
many other engines) would shift the king around on the back rank
like g1h1, not because there is some imminent threat, but because
it makes king safety look a little better just because the king ring
had a smaller area.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 34000 W: 7167 L: 6877 D: 19956
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab8216d0ebc5902932cbe64
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 22574 W: 3576 L: 3370 D: 15628
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ab84e6a0ebc5902932cbe72
How to continue from there?
This patch probably makes it easier to tune the king safety evaluation,
because the new regularity of the king ring size will make the king
safety function more continuous.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1512
Bench: 5934103
To more clearly distinguish them from "const" local variables, this patch
defines compile-time local constants as constexpr. This is consistent with
the definition of PvNode as constexpr in search() and qsearch(). It also
makes the code more robust, since the compiler will now check that those
constants are indeed compile-time constants.
We can go even one step further and define all the evaluation and search
compile-time constants as constexpr.
In generate_castling() I replaced "K" with "step", since K was incorrectly
capitalised (in the Chess960 case).
In timeman.cpp I had to make the non-local constants MaxRatio and StealRatio
constepxr, since otherwise gcc would complain when calculating TMaxRatio and
TStealRatio. (Strangely, I did not have to make Is64Bit constexpr even though
it is used in ucioption.cpp in the calculation of constexpr MaxHashMB.)
I have renamed PieceCount to pieceCount in material.h, since the values of
the array are not compile-time constants.
Some compile-time constants in tbprobe.cpp were overlooked. Sides and MaxFile
are not compile-time constants, so were renamed to sides and maxFile.
Non-functional change.
Implements renaming suggestions by Marco Costalba, Günther Demetz,
Gontran Lemaire, Ronald de Man, Stéphane Nicolet, Alain Savard,
Joost VandeVondele, Jerry Donald Watson, Mike Whiteley, xoto10,
and I hope that I haven't forgotten anybody.
Perpetual renaming thread for suggestions:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/1426
No functional change.
King and pawn endgames are typically decisive, and a small
advantage is often sufficient to win. Therefore we now take
this into account when computing the initiative adjustment.
This idea came from a series of patches by Gian-Carlo Pascutto.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 48770 W: 10203 L: 9845 D: 28722
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa58cce0ebc59029780ff8d
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 22252 W: 3572 L: 3366 D: 15314
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa5b27c0ebc59029780ffad
Ideas for future developement:
- There have been a number of changes to the initiative
calculation lately. Perhaps the coefficients could be
tuned again.
- It may be possible to add special knowledge for other
endgames in the initiative calculation.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1481
Bench: 5750110
"Loose pieces drop, in blitz keep everything protected"
Adding a small S(2,2) bonus for knights, bishops, rooks, and
queens that are "connected" to each other (in the sense that
they are under attack by our own pieces) apparently is a good
thing. It probably helps the pieces work together a bit better.
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 12317 W: 2655 L: 2467 D: 7195
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa2d86b0ebc590297cb6474
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 35725 W: 5516 L: 5263 D: 24946
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa2fc6f0ebc590297cb64a8
How to continue from there (by Stefan Geschwentner)?
• First we should identify all other eval terms which have an overlap
with new connectivity bonus (like the outpost bonus). A simple way
would be subtract the connectivity bonus from them and look if this
better, or use a SPSA session for these terms.
• Tuning Connectivity himself with SPSA seems not so promising because
of the small range which is useful. Here manual testing changes of
Connectivity like +-1 seems better.
• The eg value is more important because in endgame the position gets
more open and so attacks on pieces are easier. Another important point
is that when defending/fortress-like positions each defending piece
needs a protection, otherwise attacks on them can break defense.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1474
Bench: 5318575
Allow a potential slider threat from a square currently occupied
by a harmless attacker, just as the recent "knight on queen" patch.
Also from not completely safe squares, use the mobilityArea instead
of excluding all pawns for both SlidersOnQueen and KnightOnQueen
We now compute the potential sliders threat on queen only if opponent
has one queen.
Run as SPRT [0,4] since it is some kind of simplification but maybe
not clearly one.
STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa1ddf10ebc590297cb63d8
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 22997 W: 4817 L: 4570 D: 13610
LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa1fe6b0ebc590297cb63e5
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 11926 W: 1891 L: 1705 D: 8330
After this patch is committed, we may try to:
• re-introduce some "threat by queen" bonus to make Stockfish's queen
more aggressive (attacking aspect)
• introduce a concept of "queen overload" to force the opponent queen
into passivity and protecting duties (defensive aspect)
• more generally, re-tune the queen mobility array since patches in the
last three months have affected a lot the location/activity of queens.
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1473
bench: 5788691
We give a S(21,11) bonus for knight threats on the next moves
against enemy queen. The threats are from squares which are
"not strongly protected" and which may be empty, contain enemy
pieces or even one of our piece at the moment (N,B,Q,R) -- hence
be two-steps threats in the later case because we will have to
move our piece and *then* attack the enemy queen with the knight.
STC: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9e442e0ebc590297cb6162
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 35129 W: 7346 L: 7052 D: 20731
LTC: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a9e6e620ebc590297cb617f
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 42442 W: 6695 L: 6414 D: 29333
How to continue from there?
• Trying to refine the threat condition ("not strongly protected")
• Trying the two-steps idea for bishops or rooks threats against queen
Bench: 6051247
Similar removal of superposition code trick as in the
"Simplify tropism computation" patch. This simplification
of the space() function will allow us to specify space
masks which can reach into enemy territory.
passed STC:
LLR: 3.38 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 184630 W: 40581 L: 40758 D: 103291
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a8433360ebc590297cc80c5
passed LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 231799 W: 37647 L: 37858 D: 156294
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a96a34a0ebc590297cc8cfd
No functional change.
The current master applies Eval::Tempo even to leaves evaluated
as draw by some of the static evaluation functions of endgame.cpp
(for instance KNN vs K or stalemates in KP vs K). This results in
some lines being reported as +0.07 or -0.07 when the terminal
position has reached such endgames (0.07 being about the value
of a tempo for Stockfish).
This patch does not apply Eval::tempo to these positions. This leads
to more nodes being evaluated as VALUE_DRAW during search, giving more
opportunities for cut-offs in alpha-beta.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 52602 W: 11776 L: 11403 D: 29423
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a8cb8f60ebc590297cc8546
LTC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 156613 W: 26820 L: 26158 D: 103635
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a8f452d0ebc590297cc865a
Bench: 4924749
To compute dicovered check or pinned pieces we use some bitwise
operators that are not really needed because already accounted for
at the caller site.
For instance in evaluation we compute:
pos.pinned_pieces(Us) & s
Where pinned_pieces() is:
st->blockersForKing[c] & pieces(c)
So in this case the & operator with pieces(c) is useless,
given the outer '& s'.
There are many places where we can use the naked blockersForKing[]
instead of the full pinned_pieces() or discovered_check_candidates().
This path is simpler than original and gives around 1% speed up for me.
Also tested for speed by mstembera and snicolet (neutral in both cases).
No functional change.
This is one of the most difficult to understand but also
most important and speed critical functions of SF.
This patch rewrites some part of it to hopefully
make it clearer and drop some redundant variables
in the process.
Same speed than master (or even a bit more).
Thanks to Chris Cain for useful feedback.
No functional change.
Where variable names are explicitly incorrect, I feel morally obligated to at least
suggest an alternative. There are many, but these two are especially egregious.
No functional change.
As far as can tell, semiopenFiles are set if there is a pawn anywhere on
the file. The removed condition would be true even if the pawns were very
advanced, which doesn't make sense if we're looking for a trapped rook.
Seems the engine fairs better with this removed. My guess s that the
condition that mobility is 3 or less does this well enough.
Begs the question whether this is a mobility issue alone... not sure.
Should I do LTC test?
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 13377 W: 3009 L: 2871 D: 7497
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a855be40ebc590297cc8166
Passed LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 16288 W: 2813 L: 2685 D: 10790
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a8575a80ebc590297cc817e
Bench: 5006365
Make contempt dependent on the current score of the root position.
The idea is that we now use a linear formula like the following to decide
on the contempt to use during a search :
contempt = x + y * eval
where x is the base contempt set by the user in the "Contempt" UCI option,
and y * eval is the dynamic part which adapts itself to the estimation of
the evaluation of the root position returned by the search. In this patch,
we use x = 18 centipawns by default, and the y * eval correction can go
from -20 centipawns if the root eval is less than -2.0 pawns, up to +20
centipawns when the root eval is more than 2.0 pawns.
To summarize, the new contempt goes from -0.02 to 0.38 pawns, depending if
Stockfish is losing or winning, with an average value of 0.18 pawns by default.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 110052 W: 24614 L: 23938 D: 61500
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a72e6020ebc590f2c86ea20
LTC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 16470 W: 2896 L: 2705 D: 10869
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a76c5b90ebc5902971a9830
A second match at LTC was organised against the current master:
ELO: 1.45 +-2.9 (95%) LOS: 84.0%
Total: 19369 W: 3350 L: 3269 D: 12750
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7acf980ebc5902971a9a2e
Finally, we checked that there is no apparent problem with multithreading,
despite the fact that some threads might have a slightly different contempt
level that the main thread.
Match of this version against master, both using 5 threads, time control 30+0.3:
ELO: 2.18 +-3.2 (95%) LOS: 90.8%
Total: 14840 W: 2502 L: 2409 D: 9929
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7bf3e80ebc5902971a9aa2
Include suggestions from Marco Costalba, Aram Tumanian, Ronald de Man, etc.
Bench: 5207156
The 'eval' debugging command in Terminal did not initialize the Eval::Contempt
variable, leading to random output during debugging sessions (normal search
was unaffected by the bug).
Example of session where the two 'eval' commands should give the same output,
but did not:
./stockfish
position startpos
d
eval
go depth 20
d
eval
The bug is fixed by initializing Eval::Contempt to SCORE_ZERO in Eval::trace
No functional change.
Current master can yield different staticEvals depending on the path
used to reach the position. The reason for this is that the evaluation after a
null move is always computed subtracting 2 * Eval::Tempo, while this is not
the case for lazy or specialized evals. This patch always adds tempo to evals,
which doesn't affect playing strength:
LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 59911 W: 7616 L: 7545 D: 44750
STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 104947 W: 18897 L: 18919 D: 67131
Fixes issue #1335
Bench: 5208264
Simplify the other check penalty computation. Compared to current master,
a) it uses a 143 kingDanger penalty instead of S(10, 10) for the "otherCheck"
(credits to ElbertoOne for finding a suitable kingDanger range to replace the score
and to Guardian for showing this could also be a neutral change at LTC).
This makes our king safety model more consistent and simpler.
b) it might also score more than one "otherCheck" penalty for a given piece type instead of just one
c) it might score many pinned penalties instead of just one.
d) It also remove 3 conditionals and uses simpler expressions.
So it was tested as a SPRT[-3, 1]
Passed STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a2b560b0ebc590ccbb8ba6b
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 11705 W: 2217 L: 2080 D: 7408
And LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a2bfd0d0ebc590ccbb8bab0
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 26812 W: 3575 L: 3463 D: 19774
Trying to improve on b) another attempt was made to score also the
"otherchecks" for piece types which had some safe checks, but this
failed STC http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a2c79e60ebc590ccbb8badd
bench: 5149133
* A better contempt implementation for Stockfish
The round 2 of TCEC season 10 demonstrated the benefit of having a nice contempt implementation: it gives the strongest programs in the tournament the ability to slow down the game when they feel the position is slightly worse, prefering to stay in a complicated (even if slightly risky) middle game rather than simplifying by force into a drawn endgame.
The current contempt implementation of Stockfish is inadequate, and this patch is an attempt to provide a better one.
Passed STC non-regression test against master:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 83360 W: 15089 L: 15075 D: 53196
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a1bf2de0ebc590ccbb8b370
This contempt implementation is showing promising results in certains situations. For instance, it obtained a nice +30 Elo gain when playing with contempt=40 against Stockfish 7, compared to current master:
• master against SF 7 (20000 games at LTC): +121.2 Elo
• this patch with contempt=40 (20000 games at LTC): +154.11 Elo
This was the result of real cooperative work from the Stockfish team, with key ideas coming from Stefan Geschwentner (locutus2) and Chris Cain (ceebo) while most of the community helped with feedback and computer time.
In this commit the bench is unchanged by default, but you can test at home with the new contempt in the UCI options. The style of play will change a lot when using contempt different of zero (I repeat: not done in this version by default, however)!
The Stockfish team is still deliberating over the best default contempt value in self-play and the best contempt modeling strategy, to help users choosing a contempt value when playing against much weaker programs. These informations will be given in future commits when available :-)
Bench: 5051254
* Remove the prefetch
No functional change.
Currently the NORTH/WEST/SOUTH/EAST values are of type Square, but conceptually they are not squares but directions. This patch separates these values into a Direction enum and overloads addition and subtraction to allow adding a Square to a Direction (to get a new Square).
I have also slightly trimmed the possible overloadings to improve type safety. For example, it would normally not make sense to add a Color to a Color or a Piece to a Piece, or to multiply or divide them by an integer. It would also normally not make sense to add a Square to a Square.
This is a non-functional change.
The new "weak" expression helps simplify the safe check calculations for rooks or minors, (but the end result for all the safe checks is the exactly the same as in current master)
The only functional change is for the "outer king ring" (for example, squares f3 g3 h3 when white king is on g1). In current master, there was a 191 penalty if any of these was not defended at all.
With this pr, there is this 191 penalty if any of these is not defended at all or is only defended by a white queen.
Tested as a simplification
STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/59fb03d80ebc590ccbb89fee
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 66167 W: 12015 L: 11971 D: 42181
(against master (Update Copyright year inMakefile))
LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a0106ae0ebc590ccbb8a55f
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 15790 W: 2095 L: 1968 D: 11727
(against master (Handle BxN trade as good capture when history scor))
same as #1296 but rebased on latest master
bench: 5109559
Avoid constructing, passing as a parameter and binding a useless empty tuple of pointers in the qsearch move picker constructor.
Also reformat the scoring function in movepicker.cpp and do some cleaning in evaluate.cpp while there.
No functional change.
This patch puts the evaluation helper functions inside EvalInfo struct, which simplifies a bit their signature and (most importantly, IMHO) makes their C++ code much cleaner and simpler to read (by removing the "ei." qualifiers all around in evaluate.cpp).
Also rename the EvalInfo struct into Evaluation class to get a natural invocation v = Evaluation(p).value() to evaluation position p.
The downside is an increase of 20 lines in evaluate.cpp (for the prototypes of the helper functions). The upsides are better readability and a speed-up of 0.6% (by generating all the helpers for the NO_TRACE case together, which helps the instruction cache).
No functional change
Closes#1135
The previous patch has added a fraction of the king danger score to the
endgame score of the tapered eval, so it seems natural to perform the
king danger computation later in the endgame.
With this patch we extend the limit of such check analysis down to the
material of Rook+Knight, when we have at least two pieces attacking the
opponent king zone.
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 7446 W: 1409 L: 1253 D: 4784
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/591c097c0ebc59035df3477c
and LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 14234 W: 1946 L: 1781 D: 10507
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/591c24f10ebc59035df3478c
Bench: 5975183
Closes#1121
In current master the size of the king ring varies abruptly from eight
squares when the king is in g8, to 12 squares when it is in g7. Because
the king ring is used for estimating attack strength, this may lead to
an overestimation of king danger in some positions. This patch limits
the king ring to eight squares in all cases.
Inspired by the following forum thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/fishcooking/xrUCQ7b0ObE
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 9244 W: 1777 L: 1611 D: 5856
and LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 87121 W: 11765 L: 11358 D: 63998
Bench: 6121121
Closes#1115
Replacing the old Protector table with a simple linear formula which takes into account a different slope for each different piece type.
The idea of this simplification of Protector is originated by Alain (Rocky)
STC: LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 70382 W: 12859 L: 12823 D: 44700
LTC: LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 61554 W: 8098 L: 8031 D: 45425
Bench: 6107863
Closes#1099
STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 58462 W: 10615 L: 10558 D: 37289
LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 65061 W: 8539 L: 8477 D: 48045
It is worth noting that an attempt to only increase the bonus passed STC but failed LTC, and
an attempt to remove the cap without increasing the bonus is still running at STC, but will probably fail after more than 100k.
Bench: 6188591
Closes#1063
This patch removes the empty rows at the beginning and at the end of
MobilityBonus[] and Protector[] arrays:
• reducing the size of MobilityBonus from 768 bytes to 512 bytes
• reducing the size of Protector from 1024 to 512 bytes
Also adds some comments and cleaner code for the arrays in pawns.cpp
No speed penalty (measured speed-up of 0.4%).
No functional change.
Closes#1018
By defining "strongly protected" as "protected by a pawn, or protected
by two pieces and not attacked by two enemy pieces".
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 17050 W: 3128 L: 2931 D: 10991
Passed LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 120995 W: 15852 L: 15343 D: 89800
Bench : 6269229
Closes#1016
Initial protective idea by Snicolet for knight, for other pieces too
Patch add penalties and bonuses for pieces, depending on the distance from the own king
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 21192 W: 3919 L: 3704 D: 13569
LTC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 26177 W: 3642 L: 3435 D: 19100
Bench : 6687377
Closes#1012
Positions with pawns on only one flank tend to be more drawish. We add
a term to the initiative bonus to help the attacking player keep pawns
on both flanks.
STC: yellowish run stopped after 257137 games
LLR: -0.92 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 257137 W: 46560 L: 45511 D: 165066
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 15602 W: 2125 L: 1956 D: 11521
Bench : 6976310
Closes#1009
A tuning patch which cover the following changes:
increase the importance of queen and rook mobility in endgame and
decrease it in mg, since if we use the heavy pieces too early in the game
we will just make opponent develop their pieces by threatening ours.
King Psqt:
1)King will be encouraged more to stay in the first ranks in the MG
2)and will be encouraged more to go to the middle of the board/last ranks in the EG
Bishop scale better in EG
Logical changes on various psqt tables
1/6 of the changes of the last tuning session on mobility tables
STC: LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 227879 W: 41240 L: 40313 D: 146326
LTC : LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 167047 W: 21871 L: 21291 D: 123885
Bench: 5695960
Closes#1008
Minor non-functional simplifications in computing the scale factor.
In my opinion, the code is now slightly more readable:
- remove one condition which can never be satisfied.
- immediately return instead of assigning the sf variable.
Tested for non-regression:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 62162 W: 11166 L: 11115 D: 39881
No functional change
Closes#992
Results for 20 tests for each version (pgo-builds):
Base Test Diff
Mean 2110519 2118116 -7597
StDev 8727 4906 10112
p-value: 0,774
speedup: 0,004
Further verified for no regression:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5885abd10ebc5915193f79e6
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 21786 W: 3959 L: 3840 D: 13987
No functional change
Move more code into eval_init, removing some
clutter in the main routine.
Write eval_init only from "our" point of view
(do not init the attackedBy[Them] bitboards).
Add mobilityArea to the evalinfo
A few edits while being there
tested for non-regression at STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/587fab230ebc5915193f77d9
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 39585 W: 7183 L: 7094 D: 25308
Non functional change.
After we have taken into account all cheap evaluation
terms, we check whether the score exceeds a given threshold.
If this is the case, we return a scaled down evaluation.
STC:
LLR: 3.35 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 12575 W: 2316 L: 2122 D: 8137
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 67480 W: 9016 L: 8677 D: 49787
Current version is the one rewritten by ceebo
further edited by me.
Bench: 5367704
Non-functional changes
a) splitting the threat array to avoid using an enum
b) reorder the scores according to functions where they are used.
c) declarations in evaluate_pieces after the const(s) like elsewhere
d) more compact definitions of KingFlank,
now that we need it also for the PanwLessFlank penalty.
e) reuse CenterFiles in evaluate_space
f) move one line inside next popcount
No functional change.
It was a bit of a hack, without intrinsic value, but rather compensating for the
fact that checks were mistuned.
STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 88308 W: 15553 L: 15545 D: 57210
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 53115 W: 6741 L: 6662 D: 39712
bench 5468995
Rename shift_bb() to shift(), and DELTA_S to SOUTH, etc.
to improve code readability, especially in evaluate.cpp
when they are used together:
old b = shift_bb<DELTA_S>(pos.pieces(PAWN))
new b = shift<SOUTH>(pos.pieces(PAWN))
While there fix some small code style issues.
No functional change.
Rescales the king danger variables in evaluate_king() to
suppress the KingDanger[] array. This avoids the cost of
the memory accesses to the array and simplifies the non-linear
transformation used.
Full credits to "hxim" for the seminal idea and implementation,
see pull request #786.
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/786
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 9649 W: 1829 L: 1689 D: 6131
Passed LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 53494 W: 7254 L: 7178 D: 39062
Bench: 6116200
Don't allow pinned pieces to attack the exchange-square as long all
pinners (this includes also potential ones) are on their original
square.
As soon a pinner moves to the exchange-square or get captured on it, we
fall back to standard SEE behaviour.
This correctly handles the majority of cases with absolute pins.
bench: 6883133
In evaluate, we start by initializing the pos.psq_score
and adding the material imbalance. After that, we check
whether a specialized eval exists and if yes we return
that value and discard whatever we have computed until now.
It sounds more logical to first probe material entry and
return if we have a specialized eval, and only if it is
not the case initialize eval with some values. There is
no measurable speed-difference on my computer.
Non functional change.
If the opponent has a cramped position, opening a file often
helps him/her to exchange pieces, so it makes sense to reduce
the space bonus if there are open files.
Credits: Leonardo Ljubičić for the strategic idea, Alain Savard for the
implementation of the open files calculation, "CrunchyNYC" for the
compensation of the numerator.
STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 49112 W: 9239 L: 8900 D: 30973
LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 89415 W: 12014 L: 11601 D: 65800
Bench: 7591630
This greately simplifies usage because hides to the
search the implementation specific CheckInfo.
This is based on the work done by Marco in pull request #716,
implementing on top of it the ideas in the discussion: caching
the calls to slider_blockers() in the CheckInfo structure,
and simplifying the slider_blockers() function by removing its
first parameter.
Compared to master, bench is identical but the number of calls
to slider_blockers() during bench goes down from 22461515 to 18853422,
hopefully being a little bit faster overall.
archlinux, gcc-6
make profile-build ARCH=x86-64-bmi2
50 runs each
bench:
base = 2356320 +/- 981
test = 2403811 +/- 981
diff = 47490 +/- 1828
speedup = 0.0202
P(speedup > 0) = 1.0000
perft 6:
base = 175498484 +/- 429925
test = 183997959 +/- 429925
diff = 8499474 +/- 469401
speedup = 0.0484
P(speedup > 0) = 1.0000
perft 7 (but only 10 runs):
base = 185403228 +/- 468705
test = 188777591 +/- 468705
diff = 3374363 +/- 476687
speedup = 0.0182
P(speedup > 0) = 1.0000
$ ./pyshbench ../Stockfish/master ../Stockfish/test 20
run base test diff
...
base = 2501728 +/- 182034
test = 2532997 +/- 182034
diff = 31268 +/- 5116
speedup = 0.0125
P(speedup > 0) = 1.0000
No functional change.
GCC uses SSE instructions to move data but in 32-bit gcc version used
by abrok the stack is not 16-byte aligned due to a bug.
This patch workaround teh bug by not using the stack
to store KingFlank[]
Fixes issue #721.
No functional change.
Moving a few lines from evaluate_threats to evaluate_pieces allows to
a) Remove a condition pos.count<QUEEN>(Them) == 1
b) use precalculated s instead of pos.square(Them)
c) do not check the condition at all in queenless endings
Passed STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5752e0410ebc59029919b1f4
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 67175 W: 12194 L: 12152 D: 42829
and LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/57587b140ebc59029919b2f4
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 20276 W: 2774 L: 2653 D: 14849
bench: 7907962
A middle ground patch of two successful tuning patches,
one at STC, the other at LTC, which now passed both.
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 67893 W: 12777 L: 12384 D: 42732
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 30165 W: 4189 L: 3960 D: 22016
bench: 9209507
Introducing a new multi-purpose penalty related to King safety, which
includes all kind of potential checks (from unsafe or unavailable
squares currently occupied by some other piece)
This will indirectly detect and reward some pins, discovered checks, and
motifs such as square vacation, or rook behind its pawn and aligned with
King (example Black Rg8, g7 against Kg1),
and penalize some pawn blockers (if they move, it allows a discovered
check by the pawn).
And since it looks also at protected squares, it detects some potential
defense overloading.
Finally, the rook contact checks had been removed some time ago. This
test will give a small bonus for them, as well as for bishop contact
checks.
Passed STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5729ec740ebc59301a354b36
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 13306 W: 2477 L: 2296 D: 8533
and LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/572a5be00ebc59301a354b65
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 20369 W: 2750 L: 2565 D: 15054
bench: 9298175
Seems to give around 1% speed-up for CPUs with popcnt support.
Seems to give a very minor speed-up for CPUs without popcnt.
No functional change
Resolves#646
There was already a penalty for squares only defended by King (undefended)
This test records a penalty for completely undefended squares in the so called extended king-ring
(so if we exclude squares defended by a Kg8 for example, we only look at h6 g6 and f6)
We also exclude squares occupied by opponent pieces in this computation,
based on the following results
Was yellow at STC
LLR: -2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 112499 W: 20649 L: 20293 D: 71557
and passed LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 36805 W: 5100 L: 4857 D: 26848
Bench: 8430233
Resolves: #619
Also a speedup(about 1%) on 64-bit w/o hardware popcnt
Retire Max15 and Full template parameters
(Contributed by Marco Costalba)
Now that we have just SW and HW versions, use
template default parameter to get rid of explicit
template parameters.
Retire bitcount.h and move the only defined
function to bitboard.h
No functional change
Resolves#620
Give more weight to the pawns number and
the vertical king distance in evaluate_initiative()
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 26729 W: 5067 L: 4825 D: 16837
and LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 60480 W: 8338 L: 8016 D: 44126
Bench: 8295162
Resolves#594
Vizvezdenec