[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
// If scale is not already specific, scale down the endgame via general heuristics
if (sf == SCALE_FACTOR_NORMAL)
{
- if (pos.opposite_bishops())
- {
+ if ( pos.opposite_bishops()
+ && pos.non_pawn_material(WHITE) == BishopValueMg
+ && pos.non_pawn_material(BLACK) == BishopValueMg)
// Endgame with opposite-colored bishops and no other pieces is almost a draw
- if ( pos.non_pawn_material(WHITE) == BishopValueMg
- && pos.non_pawn_material(BLACK) == BishopValueMg)
- sf = 31;
-
- // Endgame with opposite-colored bishops, but also other pieces. Still
- // a bit drawish, but not as drawish as with only the two bishops.
- else
- sf = 46;
- }
+ sf = 31;
else
- sf = std::min(40 + 7 * pos.count<PAWN>(strongSide), sf);
+ sf = std::min(40 + (pos.opposite_bishops()? 2 : 7) * pos.count<PAWN>(strongSide), sf);
}
return ScaleFactor(sf);