Init Stack::staticEval to VALUE_NONE instead of 0 #4320
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
bench: 4068510
|
I sometimes feel like STCfish and LTCfish are two completely different engines, I wonder if this will help lessen that feeling. Great find! |
|
Closed via 9fe9ff0, congrats :-) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/63ab91cf39af998100ce1666
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) <0.00,2.00>
Total: 53736 W: 14285 L: 13955 D: 25496
Ptnml(0-2): 121, 5921, 14500, 6159, 167
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/63b2af5ee28ed36c814bed52
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) <-1.75,0.25>
Total: 33776 W: 9130 L: 8934 D: 15712
Ptnml(0-2): 14, 3240, 10185, 3434, 15
bench: 4068510
This fixes a bug where on line 278 the Stack::staticEvals are initialized to 0. However VALUE_NONE is defined as 32002 so this is a bug in master. (Also includes a couple of non functional cleanups of the for loops.) Some additional comments at mstembera@0c62ca5