Should be a very minor change, but there is a small
functional change because futility_margin() is used in more
places then in the pruning formula.
After 999 games at 1+0
Mod vs Orig +167 =678 -154 +5 ELO
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
for (int j = 0; j < 64; j++) // j == moveNumber
{
// FIXME: test using log instead of BSR
for (int j = 0; j < 64; j++) // j == moveNumber
{
// FIXME: test using log instead of BSR
- FutilityMarginsMatrix[i][j] = (i < 2 ? 0 : 112 * bitScanReverse32(i * i / 2)) - 8 * j;
+ FutilityMarginsMatrix[i][j] = (i < 2 ? 0 : 112 * bitScanReverse32(i * i / 2)) - 8 * j + 45;
}
// Init futility move count array
}
// Init futility move count array
// Value based pruning
Depth predictedDepth = newDepth - nonpv_reduction(depth, moveCount); // We illogically ignore reduction condition depth >= 3*OnePly
futilityValueScaled = ss[ply].eval + futility_margin(predictedDepth, moveCount)
// Value based pruning
Depth predictedDepth = newDepth - nonpv_reduction(depth, moveCount); // We illogically ignore reduction condition depth >= 3*OnePly
futilityValueScaled = ss[ply].eval + futility_margin(predictedDepth, moveCount)
- + H.gain(pos.piece_on(move_from(move)), move_to(move)) + 45;
+ + H.gain(pos.piece_on(move_from(move)), move_to(move));
if (futilityValueScaled < beta)
{
if (futilityValueScaled < beta)
{
// Value based pruning
Depth predictedDepth = newDepth - nonpv_reduction(sp->depth, moveCount);
futilityValueScaled = ss[sp->ply].eval + futility_margin(predictedDepth, moveCount)
// Value based pruning
Depth predictedDepth = newDepth - nonpv_reduction(sp->depth, moveCount);
futilityValueScaled = ss[sp->ply].eval + futility_margin(predictedDepth, moveCount)
- + H.gain(pos.piece_on(move_from(move)), move_to(move)) + 45;
+ + H.gain(pos.piece_on(move_from(move)), move_to(move));
if (futilityValueScaled < sp->beta)
{
if (futilityValueScaled < sp->beta)
{