Main idea is that, in some cases, 'in check' situations are not so different from 'not in check' ones.
Trying to use piece count in order to select only a few 'in check' situations have failed LTC testing.
It could be interesting to apply one of those ideas in other parts of the search function.
passed STC:
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/
60f1b68dd1189bed71812d40
LLR: 2.93 (-2.94,2.94) <-2.50,0.50>
Total: 53472 W: 4078 L: 4008 D: 45386
Ptnml(0-2): 127, 3297, 19795, 3413, 104
passed LTC:
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/
60f291e6d1189bed71812de3
LLR: 2.92 (-2.94,2.94) <-2.50,0.50>
Total: 89712 W: 2651 L: 2632 D: 84429
Ptnml(0-2): 60, 2261, 40188, 2294, 53
closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/3619
Bench:
5185789
Gary Heckman (gheckman)
George Sobala (gsobala)
gguliash
+Giacomo Lorenzetti (G-Lorenz)
Gian-Carlo Pascutto (gcp)
Gontran Lemaire (gonlem)
Goodkov Vasiliy Aleksandrovich (goodkov)
- 4923;
// Decrease/increase reduction for moves with a good/bad history (~30 Elo)
- if (!ss->inCheck)
- r -= ss->statScore / 14721;
+ r -= ss->statScore / 14721;
}
// In general we want to cap the LMR depth search at newDepth. But if