X-Git-Url: https://git.sesse.net/?p=stockfish;a=blobdiff_plain;f=src%2Fmovepick.cpp;h=c71572e7cf86bead8aa853dd16db512ab329e55d;hp=5f170297b2a26c9c9cae15f73a9415d33e0a0645;hb=d087b0a34a6aaa0fc31d2fa256b02861d0351256;hpb=714069e24839b5111ccf93a3170763c4b383f2dd diff --git a/src/movepick.cpp b/src/movepick.cpp index 5f170297..c71572e7 100644 --- a/src/movepick.cpp +++ b/src/movepick.cpp @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ 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, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the @@ -205,23 +206,22 @@ 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. + // the subtree size. Instead of calculating SEE here to filter out + // loosing captures, we delay the filtering in pick_move_from_list() + Move m; + for (int i = 0; i < numOfMoves; i++) { - int seeValue = pos.see(moves[i].move); - if (seeValue >= 0) - { - if (move_promotion(moves[i].move)) - moves[i].score = QueenValueMidgame; - else - moves[i].score = int(pos.midgame_value_of_piece_on(move_to(moves[i].move))) - -int(pos.type_of_piece_on(move_from(moves[i].move))); - } else - moves[i].score = seeValue; + m = moves[i].move; + 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))); } } @@ -229,25 +229,25 @@ void MovePicker::score_noncaptures() { // First score by history, when no history is available then use // piece/square tables values. This seems to be better then a // random choice when we don't have an history for any move. - Move m; - int hs; - - for (int i = 0; i < numOfMoves; i++) - { - m = moves[i].move; - - if (m == killer1) - hs = HistoryMax + 2; - else if (m == killer2) - hs = HistoryMax + 1; - else - hs = H.move_ordering_score(pos.piece_on(move_from(m)), m); - - // Ensure moves in history are always sorted as first - if (hs > 0) - hs += 1000; - - moves[i].score = hs + pos.mg_pst_delta(m); + Move m; + int hs; + + for (int i = 0; i < numOfMoves; i++) + { + m = moves[i].move; + + if (m == killer1) + hs = HistoryMax + 2; + else if (m == killer2) + hs = HistoryMax + 1; + else + hs = H.move_ordering_score(pos.piece_on(move_from(m)), m); + + // Ensure moves in history are always sorted as first + if (hs > 0) + hs += 1000; + + moves[i].score = hs + pos.mg_pst_delta(m); } } @@ -320,26 +320,21 @@ Move MovePicker::pick_move_from_list() { while (movesPicked < numOfMoves) { - int bestScore = -10000000; - bestIndex = -1; - for (int i = movesPicked; i < numOfMoves; i++) + bestIndex = find_best_index(); + + if (bestIndex != -1) // Found a possibly good capture { - if (moves[i].score < 0) + move = moves[bestIndex].move; + int seeValue = pos.see(move); + if (seeValue < 0) { // Losing capture, move it to the badCaptures[] array assert(numOfBadCaptures < 63); - badCaptures[numOfBadCaptures++] = moves[i]; - moves[i--] = moves[--numOfMoves]; - } - else if (moves[i].score > bestScore) - { - bestIndex = i; - bestScore = moves[i].score; + moves[bestIndex].score = seeValue; + badCaptures[numOfBadCaptures++] = moves[bestIndex]; + moves[bestIndex] = moves[--numOfMoves]; + continue; } - } - if (bestIndex != -1) // Found a good capture - { - move = moves[bestIndex].move; moves[bestIndex] = moves[movesPicked++]; if ( move != ttMove && move != mateKiller