Ronald de Man [Sun, 18 Mar 2018 22:38:58 +0000 (23:38 +0100)]
Mark all compile-time constants as constexpr.
To more clearly distinguish them from "const" local variables, this patch
defines compile-time local constants as constexpr. This is consistent with
the definition of PvNode as constexpr in search() and qsearch(). It also
makes the code more robust, since the compiler will now check that those
constants are indeed compile-time constants.
We can go even one step further and define all the evaluation and search
compile-time constants as constexpr.
In generate_castling() I replaced "K" with "step", since K was incorrectly
capitalised (in the Chess960 case).
In timeman.cpp I had to make the non-local constants MaxRatio and StealRatio
constepxr, since otherwise gcc would complain when calculating TMaxRatio and
TStealRatio. (Strangely, I did not have to make Is64Bit constexpr even though
it is used in ucioption.cpp in the calculation of constexpr MaxHashMB.)
I have renamed PieceCount to pieceCount in material.h, since the values of
the array are not compile-time constants.
Some compile-time constants in tbprobe.cpp were overlooked. Sides and MaxFile
are not compile-time constants, so were renamed to sides and maxFile.
Implements renaming suggestions by Marco Costalba, Günther Demetz,
Gontran Lemaire, Ronald de Man, Stéphane Nicolet, Alain Savard,
Joost VandeVondele, Jerry Donald Watson, Mike Whiteley, xoto10,
and I hope that I haven't forgotten anybody.
Perpetual renaming thread for suggestions:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/issues/1426
This patch checks the clock every 1024, instead of 4096 in current master.
This is a step towards a solution to alleviate the problem reported by
Gian-Carlo Pascutto in pull request #1471, about a situation where SF
would sometimes lose on time in endgames at time control 1min+1sec when
using Syzygy EGTB on a spinning drive.
We made four tests called "Estimate the Elo cost of calling now() every
N nodes", with N in {256,1024} and time control in {STC,LTC}. Each test
was 40000 games with auto-purge off, against master branch.
lucasart [Sun, 11 Mar 2018 22:56:14 +0000 (06:56 +0800)]
Use intrinsics only for LSB/MSB
The NO_BSF does not cover any real life use-case today. The only compilers that
can compile SF today, with the current Makefile and no source code changes, are
either GCC compatible (define __GNUC__) or MSVC compatible (define _MSC_VER). So
they all support LSB/MSB intrinsics.
This patch simplifies away the software fall-backs of LSB/MSB that were still
in Stockfish code, but unused in any of the officially supported compilers.
Note the (legacy) MSVC/WIN32 case, where we use a 32-bit BSF/BSR solution, as
64-bit intrinsics aren't available there.
Adjust ProbCut rBeta by whether the score is improving, and also
set improving to false when in check. More precisely, this patch
has two parts:
1) the increased beta threshold for ProbCut is now adjusted based
on whether the score is improving
2) when in check, improving is always set to false.
Co-authored by Joost VandeVondele (@vondele) and Bill Henry (@VoyagerOne).
King and pawn endgames are typically decisive, and a small
advantage is often sufficient to win. Therefore we now take
this into account when computing the initiative adjustment.
This idea came from a series of patches by Gian-Carlo Pascutto.
protonspring [Mon, 12 Mar 2018 01:47:35 +0000 (02:47 +0100)]
MovePicker: combine countermove with killers.
Handle the countermove in the same way we use stages to progress
through the killer moves, using a common array called "refutations".
Removes some lines of code and simplifies a bit the jump table.
protonspring [Sat, 10 Mar 2018 10:46:44 +0000 (11:46 +0100)]
Implement an old Russian proverb
"Loose pieces drop, in blitz keep everything protected"
Adding a small S(2,2) bonus for knights, bishops, rooks, and
queens that are "connected" to each other (in the sense that
they are under attack by our own pieces) apparently is a good
thing. It probably helps the pieces work together a bit better.
How to continue from there (by Stefan Geschwentner)?
• First we should identify all other eval terms which have an overlap
with new connectivity bonus (like the outpost bonus). A simple way
would be subtract the connectivity bonus from them and look if this
better, or use a SPSA session for these terms.
• Tuning Connectivity himself with SPSA seems not so promising because
of the small range which is useful. Here manual testing changes of
Connectivity like +-1 seems better.
• The eg value is more important because in endgame the position gets
more open and so attacks on pieces are easier. Another important point
is that when defending/fortress-like positions each defending piece
needs a protection, otherwise attacks on them can break defense.
Avoid duplicated code after recent commit "Use evaluation trend
to adjust futility margin". We initialize the improving variable
to true in the check case, which allows to avoid redundant code
in the general case.
Tested for speed by snicolet, patch seems about 0.4% faster.
No functional change.
Note: initializing the improving variable to false in the check
case was tested as a functional change, ending yellow in both STC
and LTC. This change is not included in the commit, but it is an
interesting result that could become part of a future patch about
improving or LMR. Reference of the LTC yellow test:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5aa131560ebc590297cb636e
Alain SAVARD [Fri, 9 Mar 2018 01:04:33 +0000 (20:04 -0500)]
Two steps slider threats on queen
Allow a potential slider threat from a square currently occupied
by a harmless attacker, just as the recent "knight on queen" patch.
Also from not completely safe squares, use the mobilityArea instead
of excluding all pawns for both SlidersOnQueen and KnightOnQueen
We now compute the potential sliders threat on queen only if opponent
has one queen.
Run as SPRT [0,4] since it is some kind of simplification but maybe
not clearly one.
IIvec [Mon, 5 Mar 2018 21:24:26 +0000 (22:24 +0100)]
Simplification: use Arctan for the optimism S-curve
This was an idea of Gontran Lemaire (gonlem), but the graphs
he published did not seem accurate to me. I did my own graphs,
got my own constants and here is the result:
We give a S(21,11) bonus for knight threats on the next moves
against enemy queen. The threats are from squares which are
"not strongly protected" and which may be empty, contain enemy
pieces or even one of our piece at the moment (N,B,Q,R) -- hence
be two-steps threats in the later case because we will have to
move our piece and *then* attack the enemy queen with the knight.
Torsten Franz [Mon, 5 Mar 2018 13:10:13 +0000 (14:10 +0100)]
Remove popcount trick from space evaluation
Similar removal of superposition code trick as in the
"Simplify tropism computation" patch. This simplification
of the space() function will allow us to specify space
masks which can reach into enemy territory.
Add a logarithmic term in the optimism computation, increase
the maximal optimism and lower the contempt offset.
This increases the dynamics of the optimism aspects, giving
a boost for balanced positions without skewing too much on
unbalanced positions (but this version will enter panic mode
faster than previous master when behind, trying to draw faster
when slightly behind). This helps, since optimism is in general
a good thing, for instance at LTC, but too high optimism
rapidly contaminates play.
It must be mentioned that a version of the PR with contempt 0
did not pass STC [0,5]. The version in the patch, which uses
default contempt 12, was found to be as strong as current master
on different matches against SF7 and SF8, both at STC and LTC.
One drawback maybe is that it raises the draw rate in self-play
from 56% to 59%, giving a little bit less sensitivity for SF
developpers to find evaluation improvements by selfplay tests
in fishtest.
Possible further work:
• tune the values accurately, while keeping in mind the drawrate issue
• check whether it is possible to remove linear and offset term
• try to simplify the S-shape curve
Marco Costalba [Sat, 3 Mar 2018 10:29:29 +0000 (11:29 +0100)]
Merge Stats tables
Use a recursive std::array with variadic template
parameters to get rid of the last redundacy.
The first template T parameter is the base type of
the array, the W parameter is the weight applied to
the bonuses when we update values with the << operator,
the D parameter limits the range of updates (range is
[-W * D, W * D]), and the last parameters (Size and
Sizes) encode the dimensions of the array.
This allows greater flexibility because we can now tweak
the range [-W * D, W * D] for each table.
Patch removes more lines than what adds and streamlines
the Stats soup in movepick.h
The first depth 2 margin triggers the verification quiescence search.
This qsearch() result has to be better then the second lower margin,
so we only skip the razoring when the qsearch gives a significant
improvement.
Reformating the razoring code (step 7 in search()) to unify the
depth 1 and depth 2 treatements seems quite possible, this could
possibly lead to more simplifications.
In pawn structures like white pawns f6,h6 against black pawns f7,g6,h7
the attack on the king is blocked by the own pawns. So decrease the
penalty for king safety.
See diagram and discussion in
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1434
A sample position that this patch wants to avoid is the following
1rr2bk1/3q1p1p/2n1bPpP/pp1pP3/2pP4/P1P1B3/1PBQN1P1/1K3R1R w - - 0 1
White pawn storm on the king side was a disaster, it locked the king
side completely. Therefore, all the king tropism bonus that white have
on the king side are useless, and kingadjacent attacks too. Master
gives White a static +4.5 advantage, but White cannot win that game.
The patch is lowering this evaluation artefact.
Leonid Pechenik [Wed, 28 Feb 2018 11:36:36 +0000 (12:36 +0100)]
Tweak time management
Using a SPSA tuning session to optimize the time management
parameters.
With SPSA tuning it is not always possible to say where improvements
came from. Maybe some variables changed randomly or because result
was not sensitive enough to them. So my explanation of changes will
not be necessarily correct, but here it is.
• When decrease of thinking time was added by Joost a few months ago
if best move has not changed for several plies, one more competing
indicator was introduced for the same purpose along with increase
in score and absence of fail low at root. It seems that tuning put
relatively more importance on that new indicator what allowed to save
time.
• Some of this saved time is distributed proportionally between all
moves and some more time were given to moves when score dropped a lot
or best move changed.
• It looks also that SPSA redistributed more time from the beginning to
later stages of game via other changes in variables - maybe because
contempt made game to last longer or for whatever reason.
All of this is just small tweaks here and there (a few percentages changes).
This is a functional patch only for time management, but the bench
does not reflect this because it uses fixed depth search, so the number
of nodes does not change during bench.
Simplification. Tests show that the "shift-and-superpose" trick is no longer
necessary. The speed benefit of avoiding a popcount is no longer relevant
on modern machines.
This is the sequel of the previous patch, we now let the parent node initialize
stat score to zero once for all grandchildren.
Initialize statScore to zero for the grandchildren of the current position.
So statScore is shared between all grandchildren and only the first grandchild
starts with statScore = 0. Later grandchildren start with the last calculated
statScore of the previous grandchild. This influences the reduction rules in
LMR which are based on the statScore of parent position.
Let the parent node initialize stat score to zero once for all siblings.
Initialize statScore to zero for the children of the current position.
So statScore is shared between sibling positions and only the first sibling
starts with statScore = 0. Later siblings start with the last calculated
statScore of the previous sibling. This influences the reduction rules in
in LMR which are based on the statScore of parent position.
No Tempo for draw scores given by heuristic functions
The current master applies Eval::Tempo even to leaves evaluated
as draw by some of the static evaluation functions of endgame.cpp
(for instance KNN vs K or stalemates in KP vs K). This results in
some lines being reported as +0.07 or -0.07 when the terminal
position has reached such endgames (0.07 being about the value
of a tempo for Stockfish).
This patch does not apply Eval::tempo to these positions. This leads
to more nodes being evaluated as VALUE_DRAW during search, giving more
opportunities for cut-offs in alpha-beta.
The previous asymmetry measure of the pawn structure only used to
consider the number of pawns on semi-opened files in the position.
With this patch we also increase the measure by the number of passed
pawns for both players.
Many thanks to the community for the nice feedback on the previous
version, with special mentions to Alain Savard and Marco Costalba
for clarity and speed suggestions.
Stockfish will now evaluate more positions with passed pawns, so
tuning the passed pawns values may bring Elo. The patch has also
consequences on the initiative term, where we might want to give
different weights to passed pawns and semi-openfiles (idea by
Stefano Cardanobile).
Similar to an earlier proposition of Günther Demetz, see pull request #1075.
I think it is more robust and readable than master, why hand-unroll the loop
over the killer array, and duplicate code ?
This version includes review comments from Marco Costalba.
The previous asymmetry measure of the pawn structure only used to
consider the number of pawns on semi-opened files in the postions.
With this patch we also increase the measure by the number of passed
pawns for both players.
How to continue from there: Stockfish will now evaluate more positions
with passed pawns, so tuning the passed pawns values may bring Elo.
The patch also has consequences on the initiative term.
DU-jdto [Sun, 25 Feb 2018 00:14:29 +0000 (01:14 +0100)]
More robust interaction of singular search and iid
When iid (Internal iterative deepening) is invoked, the prior value of ttValue is
not guaranteed to be VALUE_NONE. As such, it is currently possible to enter a state
in which ttValue has a specific value which is inconsistent with tte->bound() and
tte->depth(). Currently, ttValue is only used within the search in a context that
prevents this situation from making a difference (and so this change is non-functional,
but this is not guaranteed to remain the case in the future.
For instance, just changing the tt depth condition in singular extension node to be
tte->depth() >= depth - 4 * ONE_PLY
instead of
tte->depth() >= depth - 3 * ONE_PLY
interacts badly with the absence of ttMove in iid. For the ttMove to become a singular
extension candidate, singularExtensionNode needs to be true. With the current master,
this requires that tte->depth() >= depth - 3 * ONE_PLY. This is not currently possible
if tte comes from IID, since the depth 'd' used for the IID search is always less than
depth - 4 * ONE_PLY for depth >= 8 * ONE_PLY (below depth 8 singularExtensionNode can
never be true anyway). However, with DU-jdto/Stockfish@251281a , this condition can be
met, and it is possible for singularExtensionNode to become true after IID. There are
then two mechanisms by which this patch can affect the search:
• If ttValue was VALUE_NONE prior to IID, the fact that this patch sets ttValue allows
the 'ttValue != VALUE_NONE' condition of singularExtensionNode to be met.
• If ttValue wasn't VALUE_NONE prior to IID, the fact that this patch modifies ttValue's
value causes a different 'rBeta' to be calculated if the singular extension search is
performed.
Tested at STC for non-regression:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 76981 W: 17060 L: 17048 D: 42873
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7738b70ebc5902971a9868
DU-jdto [Sat, 24 Feb 2018 12:06:18 +0000 (13:06 +0100)]
Simplification: do razoring only for depth 1
The razoring heuristic is quite a drastic pruning technique,
using a depth 0 search at internal nodes of the search tree
to estimate the true value of depth n nodes. This patch limits
this razoring to the case of internal nodes of depth 1.
Author: Jarrod Torriero (DU-jdto)
Opportunities opened by this patch: it would be interesting to
know if it brings Elo to re-introduce razoring or soft razoring
at depth >= 2, maybe using a larger margin to compensate for the
increased pruning effect.
Mike Whiteley [Wed, 21 Feb 2018 20:46:25 +0000 (21:46 +0100)]
rename shift variables.
Where variable names are explicitly incorrect, I feel morally obligated to at least
suggest an alternative. There are many, but these two are especially egregious.
Mike Whiteley [Thu, 15 Feb 2018 18:34:23 +0000 (19:34 +0100)]
Simplify trapped rook
As far as can tell, semiopenFiles are set if there is a pawn anywhere on
the file. The removed condition would be true even if the pawns were very
advanced, which doesn't make sense if we're looking for a trapped rook.
Seems the engine fairs better with this removed. My guess s that the
condition that mobility is 3 or less does this well enough.
Begs the question whether this is a mobility issue alone... not sure.
Should I do LTC test?
Make contempt dependent on the current score of the root position.
The idea is that we now use a linear formula like the following to decide
on the contempt to use during a search :
contempt = x + y * eval
where x is the base contempt set by the user in the "Contempt" UCI option,
and y * eval is the dynamic part which adapts itself to the estimation of
the evaluation of the root position returned by the search. In this patch,
we use x = 18 centipawns by default, and the y * eval correction can go
from -20 centipawns if the root eval is less than -2.0 pawns, up to +20
centipawns when the root eval is more than 2.0 pawns.
To summarize, the new contempt goes from -0.02 to 0.38 pawns, depending if
Stockfish is losing or winning, with an average value of 0.18 pawns by default.
Finally, we checked that there is no apparent problem with multithreading,
despite the fact that some threads might have a slightly different contempt
level that the main thread.
Match of this version against master, both using 5 threads, time control 30+0.3:
ELO: 2.18 +-3.2 (95%) LOS: 90.8%
Total: 14840 W: 2502 L: 2409 D: 9929
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7bf3e80ebc5902971a9aa2
Include suggestions from Marco Costalba, Aram Tumanian, Ronald de Man, etc.
Leonid Pechenik [Tue, 6 Feb 2018 10:14:55 +0000 (05:14 -0500)]
Retire "Extra thinking before accepting draw PVs"
This patch simplifies the time management code, removing the extra
thinking time for moves with draw PV and increasing thinking time
for all moves proportionally by around 4%.
Last time when the time management was carefully tuned was 1.5-2 years
ago. As new patches were getting added, time management was drifting out
of optimum. This happens because when search becomes more precise pv and
score are becoming more stable, there are less fail lows, best move is
picked earlier and there are less best move changes. All this factors are
entering in time management, and average time per move is decreasing with
more and more good patches. For individual patches such effect is small
(except some) and may be up or down, but when there are many of them,
effect is more substantial. The same way benchmark with more and more
patches is slowly drifting down on average.
So my understanding that back in October adding more think time for draw
PV showed positive Elo because time management was not well tuned, there
was more time available, and think_hard patch applied this additional time
to moves with draw PV, while just retuning back to optimum would recover Elo
anyway. It is possible that absence of contempt also helped, as SF9 is showing
less 0.0 scores than the October version.
Anyway, to me it seems that proper place to deal with draw PV is search, and
contempt sounds as much better solution. In time management there is little
additional elo, and if some code is not helping like removed here, it is better
to discard it. It is simpler to find genuine improvement if code is clean.
• Passed an additional non-regression [-5..0] test at the time control
of 60sec for the game (sudden death) with disabled draw adjudication:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-5.00,0.00]
Total: 8438 W: 1675 L: 1586 D: 5177
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7c3d8d0ebc5902971a9ac0
• Passed an additional non-regression [-5..0] test at the time control
of 1sec+1sec per move with disabled draw adjudication:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [-5.00,0.00]
Total: 27664 W: 5575 L: 5574 D: 16515
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a7c3e820ebc5902971a9ac3
This is a functional change for the time management code.
The 'eval' debugging command in Terminal did not initialize the Eval::Contempt
variable, leading to random output during debugging sessions (normal search
was unaffected by the bug).
Example of session where the two 'eval' commands should give the same output,
but did not:
./stockfish
position startpos
d
eval
go depth 20
d
eval
The bug is fixed by initializing Eval::Contempt to SCORE_ZERO in Eval::trace
protonspring [Thu, 8 Feb 2018 09:45:45 +0000 (10:45 +0100)]
Obey skipQuiets strictly in MovePicker
The current logic in master is to continue return quiet moves if their
history score is above 0. It appears as though this check can be
removed, which is also more logically consistent with the “skipQuiets”
semantics used in search.cpp.
This patch may open new opportunitiesto get Elo by changing or
tuning the definition of 'moveCountPruning' in line 830 of search.cpp,
because obeying skipQuiets without checking the history scores makes
the search more sensitive to 'moveCountPruning'.
protonspring [Mon, 5 Feb 2018 16:27:59 +0000 (17:27 +0100)]
Don’t score and sort all captures in RECAPTURES stage.
For these recaptures, we’re are only considering those captures
that recapture the recapture square (small portion of all the
captures). Therefore, scoring all of the captures and pick_besting
out of the whole group is not necessary.
protonspring [Sun, 4 Feb 2018 13:57:57 +0000 (14:57 +0100)]
Simplify qsearch stages in MovePicker
The difference between QCAPTURES_1 and QCAPTURES_2 quiescence search stages
boils down to a simple check of depth. The way it's being done now is
unnecessarily complex.
This patch is simpler, clearer, and easier to understand.
Passed SPRT[-3..1] test at STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 99755 W: 22158 L: 22192 D: 55405
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a71f41c0ebc590f2c86e9cb
joergoster [Wed, 31 Jan 2018 17:23:57 +0000 (18:23 +0100)]
Implement 'old' multipv search.
It seems to be a waste of time to loop through all remaining root moves
after finishing each PV line. This patch skips this until we have reached
the last PV line (this is the way it was done in Glaurung and very early
versions of Stockfish).
syzygy1 [Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:40:07 +0000 (14:40 +0100)]
This modifies the in-search TB probing to continue searching for a mate "behind" a TB win (or loss). (#1285)
It does the following:
- If a TB win or loss value allows an alpha or beta cutoff, the cutoff is taken.
- Otherwise, the search of the current subtree continues. In PV nodes, the final value returned is adjusted to reflect that the position is a TB win (or loss).
The patch also fixes a potential problem caused by root_probe() and root_probe_wdl() dirtying the root-move scores.
This patch removes the limitation of current master that a mate is never found if the root position is not yet in the TBs, but the path to mate at some point enters the TBs. The patch is intended to preserve the efficiency and effectiveness of the current TB probing approach.
Set the default contempt value of Stockfish to 20 centipawns.
The contempt feature of Stockfish tries to prevent the engine from
simplifying the position too quickly when it feels that it is very
slightly behind, instead keeping the tension a little bit longer.
Various tests in November 2017 have proved that our current imple-
mentation works well against SF7 (which is about 130 Elo weaker than
current master) and than the Elo gain is an increasing function of
contempt, going (against SF7) from +0 Elo when contempt is set at
zero centipawns, to +30 Elo when contempt is 40 centipawns.
This november discussion left open the decision of which "default"
value for contempt we should use for Stockfish, taking into account
the various uses ofStockfish (opening preparation for humans, computer
online tournaments,analysis tool for web pages, human/computer play,
etc).
This pull request proposes to set the default contempt value of SF
to twenty centipawns, which turns out to be the highest value which
is not a regression against current master, as this seemed to be a
good compromise between risk and safety. A couple of SPRT[-3..1]
tests were done to bisect this value:
Surprisingly, a test at "very long time control" hinted that using
contempt 20 is not only be non-regressive against contempt 0, but
may actually exhibit some small Elo gain, giving a likehood of superio-
rity of 88.7% after 8500 games:
See the comments in pull request 1361 for the long, nice discussion
(180 entries :-)) leading to the decision to propose contempt 20 as
the default value:
Whether Stockfish should strictly adhere to the Komodo and Houdini
semantics and add the UCI commands to force the contempt to be White
in the so-called "analysis mode" is still under discussion, and may
be or may not be the object of a future commit.
Günther Demetz [Sat, 13 Jan 2018 08:01:23 +0000 (09:01 +0100)]
Simplify verification search (#1362)
1. avoid recursive call of verification.
For the interested side to move recursion makes no sense.
For the other side it could make sense in case of mutual zugzwang,
but I was not able to figure out any concrete problematic position.
Allows the removal of 2 local variables.
2. avoid further reduction by removing R += ONE_PLY;
Benchmark with zugzwang-suite (see #1338), max 45 secs per position:
Patch solves 33 out of 37
Master solves 31 out of 37
as discussed in issue #1349, the way pages are allocated with calloc might imply some overhead on first write.
This overhead can be large and slow down the first search after a TT resize significantly, especially for large TT.
Using an explicit clear of the TT on resize fixes this problem.
Not implemented, but possibly useful for large TT, is to do this zero-ing using all search threads. Not only would this be faster, it could also lead to a more favorable memory allocation on numa systems with a first touch policy.
Upon changing the number of threads, make sure all threads are bound
The heuristic to avoid thread binding if less than 8 threads are requested resulted in the first 7 threads not being bound.
The branch was verified to yield a roughly 13% speedup by @CoffeeOne on the appropriate hardware and OS, and an earlier version of this patch tested well on his machine:
To make sure all threads (including mainThread) are bound as soon as the total number exceeds 7, recreate all threads on a change of thread number.
To do this, unify Threads::init, Threads::exit and Threads::set are unified in a single Threads::set function that goes through the needed steps.
The code includes several suggestions from @joergoster.
Allow for general transposition table sizes. (#1341)
For efficiency reasons current master only allows for transposition table sizes that are N = 2^k in size, the index computation can be done efficiently as (hash % N) can be written instead as (hash & 2^k - 1). On a typical computer (with 4, 8... etc Gb of RAM), this implies roughly half the RAM is left unused in analysis.
This issue was mentioned on fishcooking by Mindbreaker:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a3587de0ebc590ccbb8be04
Recently a neat trick was proposed to map a hash into the range [0,N[ more efficiently than (hash % N) for general N, nearly as efficiently as (hash % 2^k):
namely computing (hash * N / 2^32) for 32 bit hashes. This patch implements this trick and now allows for general hash sizes. Note that for N = 2^k this just amounts to using a different subset of bits from the hash. Master will use the lower k bits, this trick will use the upper k bits (of the 32 bit hash).
There is no slowdown as measured with [-3, 1] test:
1) the patch is implemented for a 32 bit hash (so that a 64 bit multiply can be used), this effectively limits the number of clusters that can be used to 2^32 or to 128Gb of transpostion table. That's a change in the maximum allowed TT size, which could bother those using 256Gb or more regularly.
2) Already in master, an excluded move is hashed into the position key in rather simple way, essentially only affecting the lower 16 bits of the key. This is OK in master, since bits 0-15 end up in the index, but not in the new scheme, which picks the higher bits. This is 'fixed' by shifting the excluded move a few bits up. Eventually a better hashing scheme seems wise.
Despite these two caveats, I think this is a nice improvement in usability.
Current master can yield different staticEvals depending on the path
used to reach the position. The reason for this is that the evaluation after a
null move is always computed subtracting 2 * Eval::Tempo, while this is not
the case for lazy or specialized evals. This patch always adds tempo to evals,
which doesn't affect playing strength:
Rocky640 [Sun, 17 Dec 2017 07:50:45 +0000 (02:50 -0500)]
Simplify other checks (#1337)
Replace an intricate definition with a more natural one.
Master was excluding squares occupied by a pawn which was blocked by a pawn.
This version excludes any squares occupied by a pawn which is blocked by "something"
Alain SAVARD [Sun, 10 Dec 2017 15:13:28 +0000 (10:13 -0500)]
Simplify other checks #1334
Simplify the other check penalty computation. Compared to current master,
a) it uses a 143 kingDanger penalty instead of S(10, 10) for the "otherCheck"
(credits to ElbertoOne for finding a suitable kingDanger range to replace the score
and to Guardian for showing this could also be a neutral change at LTC).
This makes our king safety model more consistent and simpler.
b) it might also score more than one "otherCheck" penalty for a given piece type instead of just one
c) it might score many pinned penalties instead of just one.
d) It also remove 3 conditionals and uses simpler expressions.
So it was tested as a SPRT[-3, 1]
Trying to improve on b) another attempt was made to score also the
"otherchecks" for piece types which had some safe checks, but this
failed STC http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a2c79e60ebc590ccbb8badd
A better contempt implementation for Stockfish (#1325)
* A better contempt implementation for Stockfish
The round 2 of TCEC season 10 demonstrated the benefit of having a nice contempt implementation: it gives the strongest programs in the tournament the ability to slow down the game when they feel the position is slightly worse, prefering to stay in a complicated (even if slightly risky) middle game rather than simplifying by force into a drawn endgame.
The current contempt implementation of Stockfish is inadequate, and this patch is an attempt to provide a better one.
Passed STC non-regression test against master:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 83360 W: 15089 L: 15075 D: 53196
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a1bf2de0ebc590ccbb8b370
This contempt implementation is showing promising results in certains situations. For instance, it obtained a nice +30 Elo gain when playing with contempt=40 against Stockfish 7, compared to current master:
• master against SF 7 (20000 games at LTC): +121.2 Elo
• this patch with contempt=40 (20000 games at LTC): +154.11 Elo
This was the result of real cooperative work from the Stockfish team, with key ideas coming from Stefan Geschwentner (locutus2) and Chris Cain (ceebo) while most of the community helped with feedback and computer time.
In this commit the bench is unchanged by default, but you can test at home with the new contempt in the UCI options. The style of play will change a lot when using contempt different of zero (I repeat: not done in this version by default, however)!
The Stockfish team is still deliberating over the best default contempt value in self-play and the best contempt modeling strategy, to help users choosing a contempt value when playing against much weaker programs. These informations will be given in future commits when available :-)
syzygy1 [Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:52:31 +0000 (17:52 +0100)]
Use a Direction enum for Square deltas
Currently the NORTH/WEST/SOUTH/EAST values are of type Square, but conceptually they are not squares but directions. This patch separates these values into a Direction enum and overloads addition and subtraction to allow adding a Square to a Direction (to get a new Square).
I have also slightly trimmed the possible overloadings to improve type safety. For example, it would normally not make sense to add a Color to a Color or a Piece to a Piece, or to multiply or divide them by an integer. It would also normally not make sense to add a Square to a Square.
projects / stockfish / log