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]
Passed STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a2b560b0ebc590ccbb8ba6b
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 11705 W: 2217 L: 2080 D: 7408
And LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5a2bfd0d0ebc590ccbb8bab0
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 26812 W: 3575 L: 3463 D: 19774
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
bench: 5149133
Move more code into eval_init, removing some
clutter in the main routine.
Write eval_init only from "our" point of view
(do not init the attackedBy[Them] bitboards).
Add mobilityArea to the evalinfo
A few edits while being there
tested for non-regression at STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/587fab230ebc5915193f77d9
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 39585 W: 7183 L: 7094 D: 25308
Non functional change.
Non-functional changes
a) splitting the threat array to avoid using an enum
b) reorder the scores according to functions where they are used.
c) declarations in evaluate_pieces after the const(s) like elsewhere
d) more compact definitions of KingFlank,
now that we need it also for the PanwLessFlank penalty.
e) reuse CenterFiles in evaluate_space
f) move one line inside next popcount
No functional change.
Moving a few lines from evaluate_threats to evaluate_pieces allows to
a) Remove a condition pos.count<QUEEN>(Them) == 1
b) use precalculated s instead of pos.square(Them)
c) do not check the condition at all in queenless endings
Passed STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5752e0410ebc59029919b1f4
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 67175 W: 12194 L: 12152 D: 42829
and LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/57587b140ebc59029919b2f4
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 20276 W: 2774 L: 2653 D: 14849
bench: 7907962
Introducing a new multi-purpose penalty related to King safety, which
includes all kind of potential checks (from unsafe or unavailable
squares currently occupied by some other piece)
This will indirectly detect and reward some pins, discovered checks, and
motifs such as square vacation, or rook behind its pawn and aligned with
King (example Black Rg8, g7 against Kg1),
and penalize some pawn blockers (if they move, it allows a discovered
check by the pawn).
And since it looks also at protected squares, it detects some potential
defense overloading.
Finally, the rook contact checks had been removed some time ago. This
test will give a small bonus for them, as well as for bishop contact
checks.
Passed STC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5729ec740ebc59301a354b36
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 13306 W: 2477 L: 2296 D: 8533
and LTC
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/572a5be00ebc59301a354b65
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 20369 W: 2750 L: 2565 D: 15054
bench: 9298175
There was already a penalty for squares only defended by King (undefended)
This test records a penalty for completely undefended squares in the so called extended king-ring
(so if we exclude squares defended by a Kg8 for example, we only look at h6 g6 and f6)
We also exclude squares occupied by opponent pieces in this computation,
based on the following results
Was yellow at STC
LLR: -2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 112499 W: 20649 L: 20293 D: 71557
and passed LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 36805 W: 5100 L: 4857 D: 26848
Bench: 8430233
Resolves: #619
On top of the usual conditions
a) some opponent in front (but no lever)
b) some neighbours (in front) (but no neighbour behind or same rank)
c) < rank_5
to find out if a pawn is backward we look at the squares in front of this pawn to reach the same rank as the next neighbour.
In current master, a pawn is backward if any of those squares is controlled by an enemy pawn on an adjacent file
In this version, a pawn is ALSO backward if any of those squares is occupied by an enemy pawn.
STC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/56fe7efd0ebc59301a3541f1
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 19051 W: 3557 L: 3433 D: 12061
LTC:
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/56febc2d0ebc59301a354209
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40810 W: 5619 L: 5526 D: 29665
Bench: 7525245
Resolves#614
Tuned the global mobility factor for each piece, as well as some +- delta,
The master mobility factor was {266,334} and tuning gave
{267, 362} +S(-2,-2) for the Knight
{249, 328} +S( 0,-2) for the Bishop
{298, 353} +S(1,1) for the Rook
{265, 358} +S(2,-1) for the Queen
Passed STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 49402 W: 9367 L: 9037 D: 30998
and LTC
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 26831 W: 3871 L: 3658 D: 19302
Bench: 8355485
Resolves#536
Using less parameters and code to compute Threats
Includes also a few spacing edits.
Run as a simplification.
Passed STC 10+0.1
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 18879 W: 3725 L: 3600 D: 11554
Passed LTC 60+0.4
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 74116 W: 11001 L: 10958 D: 52157
bench: 8004751
PawnSafePush, with the value S(5,5) proved not "necessary"
possibly due to recent changes to MobilityArea and other changes to Connected bonus.
STC:
LLR: 3.22 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 98528 W: 18757 L: 18759 D: 61012
LTC:
LLR: 5.30 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 204194 W: 31698 L: 31734 D: 140762
Bench: 7620871
Resolves#396
Based off of Pull request #383:
Include squares occupied by some pawns in the MobilityArea
a) not blocked
b) on rank 4 and above
c) or captures
Passed STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 8157 W: 1644 L: 1516 D: 4997
And LTC
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 26086 W: 4274 L: 4051 D: 17761
-----------
Then, a simplification test failed, trying to remove b and c)
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 6048 W: 1117 L: 1288 D: 3643
Another simplification test, was run to remove just (c)
Passed STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 28073 W: 5364 L: 5255 D: 17454
And LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 34652 W: 5448 L: 5348 D: 23856
A parameter tweak test showed that changing b) for "on rank 3 and above"
does not work
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 5233 W: 937 L: 1077 D: 3219
Finally, a small rewrite, and we have this version
Include squares occupied by some pawns in the MobilityArea which are
a) not blocked
b) on rank 4 and above
Bench: 8977899
Resolves#385
In ei.attackedBy, Queen does not x-ray through Rook, but the Rook does
X-ray through the Queen.
So most of the rook contact checks supported by queen are, in fact,
Queen Contact Checks and they are already scored separately.
Bench: 7762189
Resolves#338
Small speed-up in pawn.cpp
Results for 10 tests for each version:
Base Test Diff
Mean 1435636 1445238 -9602
StDev 22576 23189 1848
p-value: 1
speedup: 0.007
No functional change
Resolves#295
