| 18-12-18 |
Viz |
countTw3 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 47623 W: 10703 L: 10335 D: 26585
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
Take 3 |
| 18-12-18 |
Viz |
countTw6 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 31851 W: 7113 L: 6825 D: 17913
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
Take 6 |
| 18-12-17 |
Fis |
voting |
diff
|
ELO: 5.63 +-2.8 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 20000 W: 3539 L: 3215 D: 13246
|
20000
@ 5+0.05 th 31 |
20K 31 Threads. New way to calculate votes 2. |
| 18-12-17 |
Jek |
master |
diff
|
ELO: 7.85 +-1.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 41148 W: 6037 L: 5107 D: 30004
|
40000
@ 60+0.6 th 1 |
after
Author: 31m059
Date: Sun Dec 16 10:04:49 2018 +0100
Timestamp: 1544951089
Use stronglyProtected |
| 18-12-17 |
pb0 |
penalty |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 35073 W: 5886 L: 5625 D: 23562
|
sprt
@ 60+0.6 th 1 |
Spec. LTC for this yellow http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c121e730ebc5902ba11aad8 (rebased to current master) |
| 18-12-17 |
31m |
simplify_candidatePasse |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 93489 W: 20433 L: 20453 D: 52603
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
Experiment with the effect size of bonus in the simplified version. 3/4. |
| 18-12-17 |
31m |
simplify_candidatePasse |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 16750 W: 3707 L: 3576 D: 9467
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
If we have two doubled pawns, which would otherwise be considered passed, do we need to not consider the back pawn passed? |
| 18-12-17 |
Fis |
voting |
diff
|
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 14330 W: 2290 L: 2115 D: 9925
|
sprt
@ 20+0.2 th 8 |
LTC New way to calculate votes 2. |
| 18-12-16 |
Fis |
voting |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 20202 W: 4031 L: 3813 D: 12358
|
sprt
@ 5+0.05 th 8 |
New way to calculate votes 2. |
| 18-12-16 |
han |
cycle_simpl |
diff
|
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 87919 W: 19152 L: 19160 D: 49607
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
Try checking in qsearch to compensate |
| 18-12-15 |
nic |
np_poplsb_opt |
diff
|
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 40810 W: 8962 L: 8878 D: 22970
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
Tried replacing a bitboard pointer with a reference in poplsb: I think getting rid of the ampersand unclutters the code and yields better-looking C++, and might even help the compiler out. ;-) |
| 18-12-15 |
Roc |
KRSimplify |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 9494 W: 2191 L: 2045 D: 5258
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
KRS-2
Fixed code
Run as a simplification, since it reduces the number of processor instructions (line 313 is called for each piece) |
| 18-12-15 |
31m |
simplify_RestrictedPiec |
diff
|
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 37078 W: 6125 L: 6030 D: 24923
|
sprt
@ 60+0.6 th 1 |
LTC. Use ~stronglyProtected to calculate RestrictedPiece. |
| 18-12-15 |
31m |
simplify_RestrictedPiec |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 35924 W: 7978 L: 7885 D: 20061
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
A fairly intuitive simplification: ~stronglyProtected is quite similar to (and simpler than) ~attackedBy[Them][PAWN] & ~attackedBy2[Them]. The only difference is that this includes squares attacked twice by both sides. |
| 18-12-15 |
31m |
RookOnQueen^ |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 15159 W: 3398 L: 3193 D: 8568
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
Attempt to revive my threat_strongqueen idea with a RookOnPawn-style approach (i.e., based on the rook's rank). Use ThreatByRook[QUEEN] / 2 for now, since it worked well in my previous attempts. |
| 18-12-15 |
Viz |
MobAreaSl4 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 13826 W: 3135 L: 2935 D: 7756
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
take 4 |
| 18-12-13 |
sni |
master |
diff
|
ELO: 8.06 +-1.8 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 40000 W: 5948 L: 5020 D: 29032
|
40000
@ 60+0.6 th 1 |
Regression/progression test against SF10 after "A combo of parameter tweaks" of December, 13th |
| 18-12-13 |
Voy |
pruningT |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 18088 W: 4120 L: 3884 D: 10084
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
Stc |
| 18-12-13 |
Viz |
QoverloadImb8 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 25473 W: 5685 L: 5429 D: 14359
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
Take 4 |
| 18-12-13 |
31m |
simplify_pruningNPM |
diff
|
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 33868 W: 5663 L: 5563 D: 22642
|
sprt
@ 60+0.6 th 1 |
LTC. I am submitting this LTC even though the [0, 4] conflicts with it and is also performing well--this is the same change as the [0, 4], only further, and has a similar Elo estimate so far. Therefore I would initially guess that that patch could be successfully simplified into this one, if this passes LTC. |
| 18-12-13 |
31m |
tweak_pruningNPM4 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 20685 W: 4623 L: 4378 D: 11684
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
Further increase: value 15,000. |
| 18-12-13 |
31m |
simplify_pruningNPM |
diff
|
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 13445 W: 3000 L: 2862 D: 7583
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
Increasing this threshold by degrees I originally thought would be ridiculous actually seems slightly Elo-gaining (6K, 7K, 8K, 10K all produced long yellow [0, 4] runs; 15K appears to possibly be promising at the moment). As this threshold increases, this condition activates less and less often but Elo seems to slightly increase. Can we simplify it away altogether? |
| 18-12-12 |
SFi |
combo_2 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 44207 W: 7451 L: 7157 D: 29599
|
sprt
@ 60+0.6 th 1 |
LTC: combo 2 |
| 18-12-12 |
Viz |
KDqueenImb2 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 11979 W: 2721 L: 2531 D: 6727
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
Take 2 |
| 18-12-12 |
xot |
tempo2 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 25660 W: 5726 L: 5461 D: 14473
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
change tempo to 22, only 1 tempo for null moves. |
| 18-12-12 |
SFi |
combo_4 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 20846 W: 4651 L: 4406 D: 11789
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
combo 4 |
| 18-12-12 |
SFi |
combo_3 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 18403 W: 4170 L: 3933 D: 10300
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
combo 3 |
| 18-12-12 |
SFi |
combo_2 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 9005 W: 2082 L: 1882 D: 5041
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
combo 2 |
| 18-12-12 |
Viz |
Ccombo2 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 13653 W: 3064 L: 2847 D: 7742
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
Take 2. |
| 18-12-12 |
Viz |
Ccombo1 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 22047 W: 4934 L: 4683 D: 12430
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
Take 1 |
| 18-12-12 |
pro |
ps_sliders4 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 86902 W: 19027 L: 19034 D: 48841
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
saves one operation (sry, my cygwin keeps generating incorrect benches). |
| 18-12-11 |
pro |
ps_color2 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 37584 W: 8210 L: 8120 D: 21254
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
crazy test. . . try color as a boolean. Removes ~color swap operator using a more natural logical NOT (!) to swap colors. |
| 18-12-11 |
Viz |
statScInit1 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 18889 W: 4157 L: 3935 D: 10797
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
Take 1 |
| 18-12-11 |
xor |
TempoT |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 37553 W: 8343 L: 8032 D: 21178
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
Value 28. |
| 18-12-10 |
Che |
NoTempo |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 81816 W: 13469 L: 13445 D: 54902
|
sprt
@ 60+0.6 th 1 |
NoTempo
Removes Tempo bonus LTC test since STC passed |
| 18-12-10 |
Che |
NoTempo |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 31090 W: 6866 L: 6763 D: 17461
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
NoTempo
Removes Tempo bonus |
| 18-12-08 |
SFi |
tweak_mobility |
diff
|
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 37129 W: 8240 L: 7930 D: 20959
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
take 2 |
| 18-12-08 |
pro |
ps_oppositecolors1 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 34663 W: 7587 L: 7491 D: 19585
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
try to simplify opposite colors. |
| 18-12-08 |
SFi |
tweak_BRpsqt |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 25853 W: 5794 L: 5528 D: 14531
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
take 2 |
| 18-12-08 |
IIv |
8x8ppsqt_tuned |
diff
|
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 29120 W: 6414 L: 6137 D: 16569
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
Talk 2 - half of the change. |
| 18-12-08 |
Che |
RemoveIID |
diff
|
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 157052 W: 34367 L: 34512 D: 88173
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
RemoveIID
Is IID really worth 2elo? Remove it entirely. |
| 18-12-07 |
Che |
SingularTweakDepth2d3 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 48373 W: 10744 L: 10390 D: 27239
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
SingularTweakDepth2d3
Changes depth to 2+depth/3 |
| 18-12-07 |
pro |
ps_sliderblockers1 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 60988 W: 13372 L: 13328 D: 34288
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
try a nonfunctional simplification of slider_blockers. |
| 18-12-07 |
Che |
FutilityNonPV |
diff
|
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 35641 W: 7921 L: 7617 D: 20103
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
FutilityNonPV
Changes the !rootNode to !PvNode |
| 18-12-06 |
sni |
master |
diff
|
ELO: 4.32 +-1.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 40000 W: 5530 L: 5033 D: 29437
|
40000
@ 60+0.6 th 1 |
Regression/progression test against SF10 after "Revert "pseudo_legal() and MOVE_NONE"" of December, 6th |
| 18-12-07 |
Viz |
PawnFork8 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 18815 W: 4224 L: 4000 D: 10591
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
Take 8 |
| 18-12-06 |
pro |
ps_blockers1 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 140102 W: 30209 L: 30319 D: 79574
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
try to simplify a slider_blocker. |
| 18-12-05 |
Voy |
cmpT2 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 50360 W: 8424 L: 8102 D: 33834
|
sprt
@ 60+0.6 th 1 |
Speculative LTC: I think this may scale well... low tp. |
| 18-12-04 |
pro |
ps_mkpd11 |
diff
|
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 32629 W: 7121 L: 7021 D: 18487
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
try to remove DistanceRingBB. |
| 18-12-04 |
xor |
noPC |
diff
|
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 13136 W: 2960 L: 2764 D: 7412
|
sprt
@ 10+0.1 th 1 |
skip probcut altogether on excludedMove. |