The idea is to penalize a bishop in case of
its pawns are on the same colored squares.
Good at short 15"+0.05 TC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 4252 W: 925 L: 806 D: 2521
And at longer 60"+0.05 TC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 15006 W: 2743 L: 2564 D: 9699
bench: 5274705
It seems stronger both at fast 15+0.05 TC with fixed game number test:
ELO: 2.74 +-2.7 (95%) LOS: 97.6%
Total: 24000 W: 4698 L: 4509 D: 14793
And also at long 60+0.05 TC with SPRT
LLR: 3.05 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 38986 W: 6845 L: 6547 D: 25594
bench: 5157061
Use an optinal argument instead of a template
parameter. Interestingly, not only is simpler,
but also faster, perhaps due to less L1 instruction
cache pressure because we don't duplicate the very
used SEE code path.
No functional change.
Rationale:
- Current settings seem to make engine *significantly* weaker in analysis mode.
- In practice this setting only has effect when king safety scores are high.
- Even in analysis mode its far more important to know if one side is getting mated,
rather than get evaluation correct with 1cp accuracy.
No functional change
According to Jean-Paul this setup should be stronger
than default.
And SPRT test seems to confirm it:
At fast TC 15"+0.05
ELO: 3.33 +-2.7 (95%) LOS: 99.2%
Total: 25866 W: 5461 L: 5213 D: 15192
At longer TC 60"+0.05
ELO: 7.27 +-5.0 (95%) LOS: 99.8%
Total: 6544 W: 1212 L: 1075 D: 4257
bench: 5473339
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
Increasing depth limit to 10 plies seems stronger
after 16K games at 15"+0.05 (ELO: +3.56) and also
repeating the test at 60"+0.05 TC:
ELO: 2.08 +-3.1 (95%) LOS: 90.9%
Total: 16000 W: 2641 L: 2545 D: 10814
Moreover setting the limit to 12 is proved stronger
then limit set to 10 by direct SPRT test at 15"+0.05:
ELO: 2.56 +-2.0 (95%) LOS: 99.5%
Total: 46568 W: 9240 L: 8897 D: 28431
So we directly set the limit to 12, the strongest setup.
bench: 4361224
Master IID formula is depth / 2
Previous patch is depth - 4 * ONE_PLY
This one is the middle way:
(dept/2 + depth-4*ONE_PLY)/2 -> depth-2*ONE_PLY-depth/4
After 16000 games at 60+0.05 th 1
ELO: 4.08 +-3.1 (95%) LOS: 99.5%
Total: 16000 W: 2742 L: 2554 D: 10704
bench: 4781239
Same idea of 5af8179647
in qsearch() but applied to search()
After 15500 games at 15+0.05
ELO: 4.48 +-3.4 (95%) LOS: 99.5%
Total: 15500 W: 3061 L: 2861 D: 9578
bench: 4985829
Always before pruning the move, it's important to check that:
bestValue > VALUE_MATED_IN_MAX_PLY
See example position:
8/2p1p3/P1NpP3/3k4/1P1BN3/2P1P3/2Q5/6K1 w - - 0 1
http://support.stockfishchess.org/discussions/problems/268-wrong-declaring-a-forced-mate-in-3-moves
This problem was present in 2.3.1, then it was fixed by my patch.
After 24000 games at 15+0.05
ELO: 2.40 +-4.4 (95%) LOS: 95.7%
Total: 24000 W: 4774 L: 4608 D: 14618
bench: 4465997
This reverts commit a24da071f0
Seems a regression when tested against 2.3.1
With this patch, have after 20000 games at 60+0.05, we have
ELO: 13.42 +-4.8 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 20000 W: 3746 L: 2974 D: 13280
Instead with the patch reverted:
ELO: 16.62 +-4.8 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 20000 W: 3816 L: 2860 D: 13324
Although we are within error bounds here we take the conservative
approach of not introducing changes that are not proved stronger
It doesn't mean that the change shall be weaker, simply that we
don't want to take any risk.
No functional change.
Here the rational seems to be that if after one try easy
move detection fails then the easy move is not so easy :-)
After 15563 games at 60+0.05
ELO: 3.04 +-5.5 (95%) LOS: 97.0%
Total: 15563 W: 2664 L: 2528 D: 10371
No functional change.
Increase MaxRatio to use more time when in trouble.
After 16000 games at 60+0.05
ELO: 4.89 +-5.4 (95%) LOS: 99.9%
Total: 16000 W: 2700 L: 2475 D: 10825
No functional change.
This seems good at short TC controls.
After 10000 games at 20+0.05
ELO: 9.56 +-6.8 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 10000 W: 1949 L: 1674 D: 6377
Testing at long TC and regression testing is still
ongoing. So this is a bit speculative commit and
could be reverted in the future.
Also re-testing at long TC the SEE pruning in PV nodes
seems less effective (perhaps even a regression, but
still ongoing) so disabled for now.
bench: 4968764
This reverts commit 0d68b523a3.
After easy move semplification this machinery is not
needed anymore (because of we don't need to know if a
root move is a recapture)
No functional change.
Detect a move as easy only if it is the only one ;-)
or if is much better than remaining ones after we
have spent 20% of search time.
Tests are ongoing, but it seems this semplification
stands. Anyhow it is experimental for now and could
be reverted/improved with further work Gary is
testing right now.
No functional change.
After previous patch if split point master is
waiting for job and "Use Sleeping Threads" is
false (our condition for official releases) then
it will lock/unlock splitPoint mutex in a super
tight loop badly affecting performance.
Rewrite the code to lock only when we are about
to finish. Note that race condition on slavesMask
is anyhow fixed.
No functional change.
There is no point searching a move that is forced.
It wastes time while allowing computer opponents to
fill hash with 100% accuracy.
[edit: Condition moved together with "easy move" ones]
Bench identical: 4922272
We detect an easy move as a recapture with an
high margin on the second best move.
Unfortunatly the recapture detection is broken
becuase we identify as a recapture any move that
follows an opponent's previous capture !
This patch fix the logic to correctly detect a
real re-capture.
No functional change.
Note that we read shared data without lock
protection, so code is theoretically prone to
torn reads. But, first splitPoint pointer
never changes, and alpha is of integer type so
it is read in a single DWORD access.
No functional change.
Joona Kiiski