X-Git-Url: https://git.sesse.net/?a=blobdiff_plain;ds=sidebyside;f=src%2Fmovepick.cpp;h=1519f85d04388c1b24940a31c4babf65ea33f7e0;hb=2ed22e4fc80313f69cbdfe0a617a70188813b16e;hp=59855dba66a56d0ab808f3f75bfce778aca4ee23;hpb=3e275680d5e9a2b335cddd4bd96bed494987933d;p=stockfish diff --git a/src/movepick.cpp b/src/movepick.cpp index 59855dba..1519f85d 100644 --- a/src/movepick.cpp +++ b/src/movepick.cpp @@ -134,6 +134,7 @@ Move MovePicker::get_next_move() { case PH_GOOD_CAPTURES: numOfMoves = generate_captures(pos, moves); score_captures(); + capSquares = EmptyBoardBB; movesPicked = 0; break; @@ -206,22 +207,36 @@ void MovePicker::score_captures() { // Suprisingly, this appears to perform slightly better than SEE based // move ordering. The reason is probably that in a position with a winning // capture, capturing a more valuable (but sufficiently defended) piece - // first usually doesn't hurt. The opponent will have to recapture, and + // first usually doesn't hurt. The opponent will have to recapture, and // the hanging piece will still be hanging (except in the unusual cases // where it is possible to recapture with the hanging piece). Exchanging // big pieces before capturing a hanging piece probably helps to reduce - // the subtree size. Instead of calculating SEE here to filter out - // loosing captures, we delay the filtering in pick_move_from_list() + // the subtree size. + // While scoring captures it moves all captures with negative SEE values + // to the badCaptures[] array. Move m; + int seeValue; for (int i = 0; i < numOfMoves; i++) { m = moves[i].move; - if (move_promotion(m)) - moves[i].score = QueenValueMidgame; + seeValue = pos.see(m); + if (seeValue >= 0) + { + if (move_promotion(m)) + moves[i].score = QueenValueMidgame; + else + moves[i].score = int(pos.midgame_value_of_piece_on(move_to(m))) + -int(pos.type_of_piece_on(move_from(m))); + } else - moves[i].score = int(pos.midgame_value_of_piece_on(move_to(m))) - -int(pos.type_of_piece_on(move_from(m))); + { + // Losing capture, move it to the badCaptures[] array + assert(numOfBadCaptures < 63); + moves[i].score = seeValue; + badCaptures[numOfBadCaptures++] = moves[i]; + moves[i--] = moves[--numOfMoves]; + } } } @@ -251,26 +266,21 @@ void MovePicker::score_noncaptures() { } } -void MovePicker::score_evasions() { - - Move m; - int hs; - - // Use MVV/LVA ordering - for (int i = 0; i < numOfMoves; i++) - { - m = moves[i].move; - - if (m == ttMove) - hs = 2*HistoryMax; - else if (!pos.square_is_empty(move_to(m))) - hs = int(pos.midgame_value_of_piece_on(move_to(m))) - -int(pos.type_of_piece_on(move_from(m))) + HistoryMax; - else - hs = H.move_ordering_score(pos.piece_on(move_from(m)), m); - - moves[i].score = hs; - } +void MovePicker::score_evasions() { + + for (int i = 0; i < numOfMoves; i++) + { + Move m = moves[i].move; + if (m == ttMove) + moves[i].score = 2*HistoryMax; + else if (!pos.square_is_empty(move_to(m))) + { + int seeScore = pos.see(m); + moves[i].score = (seeScore >= 0)? seeScore + HistoryMax : seeScore; + } else + moves[i].score = H.move_ordering_score(pos.piece_on(move_from(m)), m); + } + // FIXME try psqt also here } void MovePicker::score_qcaptures() { @@ -288,8 +298,11 @@ void MovePicker::score_qcaptures() { } -/// find_best_index() loops across the moves and returns index of -/// the highest scored one. +/// find_best_index() loops across the moves and returns index of +/// the highest scored one. There is also a second version that +/// lowers the priority of moves that attack the same square, +/// so that if the best move that attack a square fails the next +/// move picked attacks a different square if any, not the same one. int MovePicker::find_best_index() { @@ -304,14 +317,48 @@ int MovePicker::find_best_index() { return bestIndex; } +int MovePicker::find_best_index(Bitboard* squares, int values[]) { + + int hs; + Move m; + Square to; + int bestScore = -10000000, bestIndex = -1; + + for (int i = movesPicked; i < numOfMoves; i++) + { + m = moves[i].move; + to = move_to(m); + + if (!bit_is_set(*squares, to)) + { + // Init at first use + set_bit(squares, to); + values[to] = 0; + } + + hs = moves[i].score - values[to]; + if (hs > bestScore) + { + bestIndex = i; + bestScore = hs; + } + } + + if (bestIndex != -1) + { + // Raise value of the picked square, so next attack + // to the same square will get low priority. + to = move_to(moves[bestIndex].move); + values[to] += 0xB00; + } + return bestIndex; +} + /// MovePicker::pick_move_from_list() picks the move with the biggest score /// from a list of generated moves (moves[] or badCaptures[], depending on /// the current move generation phase). It takes care not to return the /// transposition table move if that has already been serched previously. -/// While picking captures in the PH_GOOD_CAPTURES phase (i.e. while picking -/// non-losing captures in the main search), it moves all captures with -/// negative SEE values to the badCaptures[] array. Move MovePicker::pick_move_from_list() { @@ -327,19 +374,9 @@ Move MovePicker::pick_move_from_list() { { bestIndex = find_best_index(); - if (bestIndex != -1) // Found a possibly good capture + if (bestIndex != -1) // Found a good capture { move = moves[bestIndex].move; - int seeValue = pos.see(move); - if (seeValue < 0) - { - // Losing capture, move it to the badCaptures[] array - assert(numOfBadCaptures < 63); - moves[bestIndex].score = seeValue; - badCaptures[numOfBadCaptures++] = moves[bestIndex]; - moves[bestIndex] = moves[--numOfMoves]; - continue; - } moves[bestIndex] = moves[movesPicked++]; if ( move != ttMove && move != mateKiller