Retire current asymmetric king evaluation
and use a much simpler symmetric one.
As a side effect retire the infamous
'Aggressiveness' and 'Cowardice' UCI
options.
Tested in no-regression mode,
Passed both STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 33855 W: 5863 L: 5764 D: 22228
And LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40571 W: 5852 L: 5760 D: 28959
bench: 8321835
This is more consistent with what other engines are doing.
Often people thinks that SF's scores are overblown. In the
end, it just boils down to the arbitrary way of rescaling them.
No functional change.
Small simplification.
Passed SPRT(-3,1) both at STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17051 W: 3132 L: 3005 D: 10914
and LTC:
LLR: 4.55 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 24890 W: 3842 L: 3646 D: 17402
The rationale behind this is that I've never managed to add a
Queen on 7th rank bonus in DiscoCheck, because it never showed
to be positive (evne slightly) in testing. The only thing that
worked is Rook on 7th rank.
In terms of SF code, it seemed natural to group it with QueenOnPawn
as well as those are done together. I know you're against groupping
in general, but when it comes to non regression test, you are being
more conservative by groupping. If the group passes SPRT(-3,1) it's
safer to commit, than test every component in SPRT(-3,1) and end up
with the risk of commiting several -1 elo regression instead of just
one -1 elo regression.
In chess terms, perhaps it's just easier to manouver a Queen (which
can more also diagonaly) than a Rook. Therefore you can let the search
do its job without needing eval ad-hoc terms to guide it. For the Rook
which takes more moves to manouver such eval terms can be (marginally)
useful.
bench: 7473314
Tested with SPRT in simplification mode [-4.00,0.00],
this ensures that the patch is (very probably) not
a regression.
Passed both short TC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.00,0.00]
Total: 27543 W: 4278 L: 4209 D: 19056
And long TC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.00,0.00]
Total: 39483 W: 7325 L: 7305 D: 24853
bench: 8347121
Hopefully this patch makes the code more:
* Self-documenting: Null search is always a zero window search,
because it is testing for a fail high. It should never be done
on a full window! The current code only works because we don't
do it at PV nodes, and therefore (alpha, beta) = (beta-1, beta):
that's the kind of "clever" trick we should avoid.
* Idiot-proof: If we want to enable null search at PV nodes, all we
need to do now is comment out the !PvNode condition. It's that simple!
In theory, null search should not be done at PV nodes, because PV nodes
should never fail high. But in practice, they DO fail high, because of
aspiration windows, and search inconsistencies, for example. So it makes
sense to keep that flexibility in the code.
No functional change.
Use ralpha instead of rbeta
* rbeta is confusing people. It took THREE attempts to code razoring
at PV nodes correctly in a recent test, because of the rbeta trick.
Unnecessary tricks should be avoided.
* The more correct and self-documenting way of doing this, is to say
that we use a zero window around alpha-margin, not beta-margin.
The fact that, because we only do it at PV nodes, alpha happens to be
beta-1 and that the current stuff with rbeta works, may be correct,
but is confusing.
Remove the misleading and partially erroneous comment about returning
v + margin:
* comments should explain what the code does, not what it could have done.
* this comment is partially wrong in saying that v+margin is "logical",
and that it is "surprising" that is doesn't work.
From a theoretical perspective, at least 3 ways of doing this are equally
defendable:
1/ fail hard: return alpha: The most conservative. We bet that the search
will fail low, but we don't know by how much and don't want to take risks.
2/ aggressive fail soft: return v (what the current code does). This
corresponds to normal fail soft, with the added assumption that we don't
care about the reduction effect (see below point 3/)
3/ conservative fail soft: return v + margin. If the reduced search (qsearch)
gives us a score <= v, we bet that the non reduced search will give us a
score <= v + margin.
* Saying that 2/ is "logical" implies that 1/ and 3/ are not, which is
arguably wrong. Besides, experimental results tell us that 2/ beats 3/,
and that's not something we can argue against: experimental results are
the only trusted metric.
* Also, with the benefit of hindsight, I don't think the fact that 2/ is
better than 3/ is surprising at all. The point is that it is YOUR turn to
move, and you are assuming that by NOT playing (and letting the opponent
capture your hanging pieces in QS) you cannot generally GAIN razor_margin(depth).
No functional change.
A great simplification that shows no regression
and it seems even a bit scalable.
Tested with fixed number of games:
Short TC
ELO: 0.60 +-2.1 (95%) LOS: 71.1%
Total: 39554 W: 7477 L: 7409 D: 24668
Long TC
ELO: 2.97 +-2.0 (95%) LOS: 99.8%
Total: 36424 W: 5894 L: 5583 D: 24947
bench: 8184352
We already update killers so it is natural to extend to
history and counter move too.
Passed both short TC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 52690 W: 9955 L: 9712 D: 33023
And long TC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 5555 W: 935 L: 808 D: 3812
bench: 7876473
1/ eval margin and gains removed:
16bit are now free on TT entries, due to the removal of eval margin. may be useful
in the future :) gains removed: use instead by Value(128). search() and qsearch()
are now consistent in this regard.
2/ futility_margin()
linear formula instead of complex (log(depth), movecount) formula.
3/ unify pre & post futility pruning
pre futility pruning used depth < 7 plies, while post futility pruning used
depth < 4 plies. Now it's always depth < 7.
Tested with fixed number of games both at short TC:
ELO: 0.82 +-2.1 (95%) LOS: 77.3%
Total: 40000 W: 7939 L: 7845 D: 24216
And long TC
ELO: 0.59 +-2.0 (95%) LOS: 71.9%
Total: 40000 W: 6876 L: 6808 D: 26316
bench 7243575
1/ eval margin and gains removed:
- gains removed by Value(128): search() and qsearch() now behave consistently!
2/ futility_margin()
- testing showed that there is no added value in this weird (log(depth), movecount)
formula, and a much simpler linear formula is just as good. In fact, it is most
likely better, as it is not yet optimally tuned.
- the new simplified formula also means we get rid of FutilityMargins[], its
initialization code, and more importantly ss->futilityMoveCount, and the hacky
code that updates it throughout the search().
- the current formula gives negative futility margins, and there is a hidden interaction
between the move coutn pruning formula and the futility margin one: what happens is
that MCP is supposed to be triggered before we use the non-sensical negative futility
margins.
3/ unify pre & post futility pruning
- pre futility pruning (what SF calls value based pruning) used depth < 7 plies,
while post futility pruning (what SF calls static null move pruning) used depth < 4 plies.
- also the condition depth < 7 in pre futility pruning was not obvious, and it seemd
to be depth < 16 (futility_margin() returns an infinite value when depth >= 7).
Tested with fixed number of games both at short TC:
ELO: 0.82 +-2.1 (95%) LOS: 77.3%
Total: 40000 W: 7939 L: 7845 D: 24216
And long TC
ELO: 0.59 +-2.0 (95%) LOS: 71.9%
Total: 40000 W: 6876 L: 6808 D: 26316
bench: 10206576
Rationale:
- Speed of double and float is about the same (not on the hot path anyway)
- Double makes code prettier (no need to write 1.0f, just 1.0)
- Only practical advantage of float is to use less memory, but since we never
store large arrays of double, we don't care.
No functional change.
Unify extensions between PV and not PV nodes
and remove all but check extensions.
This is a simplification so tested at fixed number
of games where proved to not regress.
About 45k games at 15+0.05
ELO: 1.23 +-2.0 (95%) LOS: 88.5%
Total: 45643 W: 9107 L: 8946 D: 27590
About 45k games at 60+0.05
ELO: 1.07 +-1.8 (95%) LOS: 87.8%
Total: 46786 W: 7728 L: 7584 D: 31474
bench: 3172206
Union of
- LMR >= 3 plies from Gary tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/522522960ebc595d328fcafd
- allows() tweak from Reuven tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5225fa1c0ebc595d328fcb53
Both passed Step I and failed Step II.
Instead this union passed both short TC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 14525 W: 3063 L: 2874 D: 8588
And long TC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94)
Total: 31075 W: 5566 L: 5308 D: 20201
bench: 4238160
This patch is actually the sum of two contributions that
have been tested independently:
1) Pruning of negative SEE moves in PV
After 10000 games at 20+0.05
ELO: 5.18 +-7 (95%) LOS: 99.2%
Total: 10000 W: 1952 L: 1803 D: 6245
2) Remove of bestValue > VALUE_MATED_IN_MAX_PLY condition
After 23000 games at 20+0.05
ELO: 1.63 +-4 (95%) LOS: 88.1%
Total: 23000 W: 4232 L: 4124 D: 14644
The whole patch as been re-tested at long TC with positive results:
After 10000 games at 60+0.05
ELO: 4.31 +-7 (95%) LOS: 98.3%
Total: 10000 W: 1765 L: 1641 D: 6594
Great code simplification: - instead do not futility
prune threat refutations. allows_move() is therefore removed.
4000 games at 50,000 nodes/move:
1085-989-1926 [51.2%] LOS=98.3%
4000 games in 10"+0.1"
756-751-2493 [50.1%] LOS=55.1%
EDIT: I have retested the patch of Lucas in a slightly different form
(without pruning in PvNode) and test mre or less confirms that
60 lines of code are totally unuseful:
After 6195 games at 15"+0.05"
1333 - 1325 - 3537 ELO 0
bench 5140990
