Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Increase bonus for multiple safe checks #2636

Closed

Conversation

Lolligerhans
Copy link
Contributor

There may be more specific ways to increase checking bonuses. This patch is rather generic and probably not optimal.

I use a more concise style than the tests, using ?: instead of if and adding the total bonus instead of multiple smaller parts.

I remove blank lines to group computations of check bitboards with their respective bonuses in a paragraph.

@Lolligerhans
Copy link
Contributor Author

Lolligerhans commented Apr 16, 2020

Adjusted the subject line twice.

@Lolligerhans
Copy link
Contributor Author

It may be a good idea to tune 4 specific values instead of using 3/2 of the normal bonus.

@ddugovic
Copy link

Was 3/2 the first multiplier you tried? I'm curious whether the count of safe checks would be a good multiplier...

Add 50% "safe checks" bonus when there are multiple safe checks from the
same piece type.

LTC
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) {0.25,1.75}
Total: 128184 W: 16491 L: 15954 D: 95739
Ptnml(0-2): 884, 11793, 38267, 12198, 950
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e97d1b6c9ada107a0370e03

STC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) {-0.50,1.50}
Total: 19022 W: 3733 L: 3514 D: 11775
Ptnml(0-2): 338, 2103, 4414, 2314, 342
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e97c377c9ada107a0370ddf

Bench: 4962192
@Lolligerhans
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ddugovic I also tried doubling (factor 2) if more than one, which failed badly. If you want to try count (which is greater or equal to that) you will probably need to reduce the base bonus significantly.

Note the multitude of check- or check-related bonuses which (may) interact with changes: kingAttackersCount, kingAttackersWeight, kingAttacksCount, unsafeChecks, safeChecks.

@anshulongithub
Copy link

anshulongithub commented Apr 16, 2020

@Lolligerhans shud this be tested again on top of Fauzi's parameter changes, just wanted to confirm if the changes in this PR are not related (and | or interact with) to parameter tweaks made in Fauzi's PR?

@Lolligerhans
Copy link
Contributor Author

@anshulongithub The changes do relate as this increase RookSafeCheck by 50% in some cases while the tune reduces all RookSafeCheck by 0.2% - it will be up to the maintainers to decide whether additional testing is required.

@Rocky640
Copy link

@anshulongithub there is a small overlap indeed, but I have no worry about this.
For sure there will be more tuning in the next few weeks anyway.

@vondele vondele closed this in 6f35af7 Apr 16, 2020
@vondele
Copy link
Member

vondele commented Apr 16, 2020

Thanks! I agree with @Rocky640 on this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants