Stockfish Testing Queue

Finished - 942 tests

19-01-12 31m DominatedKnight diff
LLR: 0.02 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 5 W: 2 L: 1 D: 2
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 S(20, 20); require that the knight be on the edge of the board.
19-01-12 31m DominatedKnight diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 6832 W: 1435 L: 1566 D: 3831
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 S(10, 10) was Elo-neutral; try doubling it.
19-01-12 31m DominatedKnight diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 22330 W: 4938 L: 4992 D: 12400
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Rework @protonspring's patch to be a per-knight penalty rather than per-bishop bonus. The problem with the per-bishop approach is that the three attackedBy[Them][KNIGHT] squares could be attacked by different knights, in which case neither are dominated.
19-01-12 31m PseudoTrappedRook^ diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 15810 W: 3442 L: 3528 D: 8840
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 S(100, 100)
19-01-12 31m PseudoTrappedRook diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 13509 W: 2944 L: 3042 D: 7523
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 S(50, 0)
19-01-12 31m PseudoTrappedRook diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 9170 W: 1976 L: 2095 D: 5099
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Larger penalty (50) seems unexpectedly much stronger (than 25). In case this is not a fluke, try S(75, 75).
19-01-12 31m PseudoTrappedRook diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 12176 W: 2662 L: 2766 D: 6748
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Half effect, S(25, 25).
19-01-11 31m combo_190110^ diff
LLR: -3.20 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 41331 W: 9053 L: 9068 D: 23210
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 The KDC and F tweaks don't seem to perform well together. Try dropping one at a time from the large combo. Remove F from the combo.
19-01-11 31m fawn6^ diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 32602 W: 7226 L: 7229 D: 18147
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Another attempt to indirectly handle fawn pawns. Currently, when evaluating support for the purposes of Connected bonus, we simply count the supporting pawns. But a once-supported A/H-file pawn is much stronger than a once-supported pawn elsewhere, because it is less vulnerable to pawn attacks. Consider this special case to be doubly supported.
19-01-11 31m fawn6 diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 29203 W: 6334 L: 6355 D: 16514
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Half effect: give the arithmetic average of the once-supported and twice-supported bonuses, because this case is somewhere between the two.
19-01-11 31m fawn5 diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 20607 W: 4543 L: 4605 D: 11459
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Because my previous test turned a highly promising patch into a terrible one, try the opposite.
19-01-11 31m fawn5 diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 7694 W: 1663 L: 1790 D: 4241
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 @snicolet's fawn2 was extraordinarily close to passing (Dec. 31, STC 18K green, LTC 147K yellow). It was applied quite broadly, but based on recent tests it appears that fawn pawns must be opposed. Try narrowing this test but otherwise using the same parameters.
19-01-11 31m fawn4 diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 16337 W: 3538 L: 3622 D: 9177
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Yet another potential approach to fawn pawns.
19-01-11 31m fawn3 diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 15835 W: 3419 L: 3505 D: 8911
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Check whether the side which has the fawn pawn also has a queen or rook.
19-01-11 31m fawn3 diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 16038 W: 3490 L: 3575 D: 8973
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Take 2.
19-01-11 31m combo_190110 diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 18218 W: 3971 L: 4063 D: 10184
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 The KDC and F tweaks don't seem to perform well together. Try dropping one at a time from the large combo. Remove KDC from the combo.
19-01-11 31m fawn3 diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 8978 W: 1939 L: 2059 D: 4980
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 A different take. Enemy pawns in our king ring on the A or H files, which are neither attacked by our pawns nor weak. S(30, 30).
19-01-11 31m combo_190110 diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 17360 W: 3821 L: 3917 D: 9622
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Merge new master and bugfix--I incorrectly implemented @snicolet's fawn2 (due to a mistake on my part when manually fixing a merge conflict with an earlier combo).
19-01-09 31m fawn diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 76128 W: 16610 L: 16402 D: 43116
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Half effect for the a-file.
19-01-10 31m fawn2 diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 24131 W: 5276 L: 5321 D: 13534
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Try again, ignoring castling rights. Half penalty regardless of king position along the back rank, full penalty if on the outer two files on the same side as the fawn pawn.
19-01-10 31m combo_KDC_F diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 18585 W: 4022 L: 4113 D: 10450
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Just the two most recent and most promising [0, 4]s, both by @snicolet.
19-01-10 31m combo_190110 diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 18012 W: 3969 L: 4062 D: 9981
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Combination of eight promising tweaks. I have erred on the side of inclusion for anything that looked promising in recent (since Dec. 14) combo or standalone attempts.
19-01-10 31m fawn2 diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 9452 W: 2001 L: 2119 D: 5332
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 I have been asked to try to maintain symmetry here--yet the asymmetric version (1/2 effect for queenside) is my best so far. Maybe the key is king position after all--we are more likely to be castled or able to castle kingside. Full effect if on the outer two files, half effect if able to castle there.
19-01-10 31m hinderBishop diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 10142 W: 2182 L: 2296 D: 5664
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 The opposite: knight only.
19-01-09 31m hinderBishop diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 17422 W: 3727 L: 3806 D: 9889
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Much closer to @ElbertoOne's test. However, knights are harder to block than bishops--so I wonder if this penalty ought to only be applied to bishops.
19-01-09 31m fawn_passer diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 16712 W: 3612 L: 3694 D: 9406
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 First attempt at a proposal by @Vizvezdenec, although the code is a bit ugly for now. If an enemy fawn pawn and our king are on one side (files ABC or FGH), and an enemy passer is on the other, give a large penalty.
19-01-09 31m hinderMinor diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 9994 W: 2134 L: 2249 D: 5611
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Derivative of @ElbertoOne's idea. Penalty if the king blocks the forward mobility of our minor--i.e., if the minor attacks our king and the king is in front of the minor.
19-01-09 31m fawn2 diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 15215 W: 3268 L: 3357 D: 8590
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Trying to refine the conditions for fawn pawns. Return to kingside-only for now; require that we not have a pawn on g2/g7, rather than requiring that we have one on g3/g6. In other words, this allows cases where the g-pawn is further advanced or captured.
19-01-09 31m fawn diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 35008 W: 7618 L: 7610 D: 19780
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 f1, f2, g1, or h1, and the equivalent squares for Black.
19-01-09 31m fawn diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 25103 W: 5452 L: 5493 D: 14158
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 A bug in my previous test ignored the king's position altogether--an idea I was about to test in any case. It actually appears to be an improvement so far. Move this code to pawns.cpp's main evaluation (not king safety) and try increasing to S(20, 30) from S(15, 15) at @noobpwnftw's recommendation.
19-01-09 31m fawn diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 18391 W: 3922 L: 3996 D: 10473
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Include a-file fawn pawns with equal effect size to h-file ones.
19-01-09 31m fawn diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 12041 W: 2595 L: 2700 D: 6746
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Based on @noobpwnftw's work. Also apply FawnPawn if the king is on f1/f8 or if it is able to castle kingside. The latter especially should increase the effect size.
19-01-08 31m simplify_outpost3 diff
LLR: 0.22 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 250 W: 51 L: 40 D: 159
sprt @ 60+0.6 th 1 LTC. Functionally equivalent to STC-passed version, but with cleanup by @snicolet.
19-01-09 31m RestrictedByKing diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 9525 W: 2043 L: 2160 D: 5322
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 I am trying to refine RestrictedPiece, and a vital part of that is stronglyProtected. Refine stronglyProtected using Alayan's ideas first, and then add the new logic to RestrictedPiece.
19-01-09 31m RestrictedByKing diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 15561 W: 3407 L: 3495 D: 8659
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Exclude squares where our king or queen is attempting to restrict the enemy alone.
19-01-08 31m RestrictedByKing diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 51289 W: 11172 L: 11085 D: 29032
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 @Vizvezdenec's suggestion.
19-01-08 31m RestrictedByKing diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 24702 W: 5301 L: 5344 D: 14057
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 With more precise handling of the king case, can we accept a larger RestrictedPiece bonus? Restore this promising version and increase RestrictedPiece.
19-01-08 31m simplify_outpost3 diff
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 33903 W: 7515 L: 7418 D: 18970
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Less dramatic change. Simplify away the PieceType dimension of the Outpost array; then, simply double the bishop values if Pt == KNIGHT, just as we already double them if the outpost is immediately occupied rather than available.
19-01-08 31m RestrictedByKing diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 36185 W: 7873 L: 7860 D: 20452
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 No middlegame component (when king safety is most important) for RestrictedPiece where our king is the piece restricting the enemy.
19-01-08 31m RestrictedByKing diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 12841 W: 2753 L: 2854 D: 7234
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Based on more ideas helpfully provided by @Vizvezdenec. Use more careful king handling in the middlegame--excluding king-only attacks--but leave the endgame component untouched.
19-01-08 31m simplify_outpost2 diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 10262 W: 2156 L: 2340 D: 5766
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Our master logic in handling the 8 possible cases of outpost seems inconsistent. Sometimes we handle linear dependencies with a simple equation (on an outpost vs. able to reach one; we multiply by 2 in the former), but sometimes we unroll the values into a multidimensional array (the other conditions). It seems we may be able to calculate all 8 cases with a single base Score and an equation of a few additions, a few multiplications, and one ternary operator. This seems more consistent.
19-01-07 31m RestrictedQueen diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 24819 W: 5391 L: 5433 D: 13995
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Narrower version: don't include restriction of the enemy queen done by our own queen.
19-01-07 31m RestrictedByKing diff
LLR: -3.57 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 14481 W: 3064 L: 3191 D: 8226
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Don't count enemy attacks restricted by our king in RestrictedPiece. If anything, we should penalize these squares in king danger, not allocate bonus for them.
19-01-07 31m RestrictedQueen^ diff
LLR: -2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 13563 W: 2891 L: 2988 D: 7684
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 +50% RestrictedPiece for restricting the enemy's queen attacks specifically.
19-01-07 31m respin_PDS diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 27778 W: 6031 L: 6059 D: 15688
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Respin this idea from last June, since I think it's still relevant to SF's (mis?)-evaluation of passers.
19-01-07 31m moreDoubled_Viz diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.50,4.50]
Total: 16714 W: 3579 L: 3661 D: 9474
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Constant tweak of @Vizvezdenec's 111K yellow (moreDoubled8) from Dec. 28. Use endgame-only S(0, 50) rather than S(10, 40).
18-12-29 31m combo_CE_PF diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 47592 W: 10388 L: 10365 D: 26839
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Try without the combo_O_SS tweaks, in case they are producing the worse-than-expected results. (I have kept CE and PF because they are very recent positive results.)
18-12-29 31m combo_O_SS_CE_PF diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 24856 W: 5442 L: 5508 D: 13906
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 I overlooked the fact that @snicolet had a better CloseEnemies tweak than the one I used. Try again with this one.
18-12-28 31m combo_O_SS_CE_PF diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 69764 W: 15253 L: 15143 D: 39368
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Merge @snicolet's tweak_closeenemies^^ (STC 59K yellow) and @Vizvezdenec's KDreodree3 (STC 98K green, LTC 64K yellow) into my existing combo_O_SS (82K STC yellow, 98K LTC yellow), which hopefully will be a helpful vehicle for these other two promising tweaks. (If this passes STC, are the correct LTC bounds [0, 4] or [0, 3.5]?)
18-12-28 31m tweak_CloseEnemies diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 25887 W: 5627 L: 5689 D: 14571
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 S(10, 0).