Yes it's me. I think it stands for "stockfishbot" which is the name of my account in the fishtest and in FICS.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
Hi Robert, so you are st (I would suppose you to be rt )
I really do not have time to do tests (besides I am not very good at testing), however, I have plenty of time for suggesting ideas for other to test...
Good luck with that. If only I knew programming I would try your ideas I somehow have the feeling that you know really well some of the Stockfish's weaknesses.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:The Fishtest, sorry to tell you my gut feeling, but some 80% of eval ideas tested are absolutely ludicrous, which means that ideas that have absolutely no chance to pass the test take up 4/5 of the testing time, at least what concerns eval ideas.
I have a fervent desire for someone to make a patch with bonus for longer chains of pawns, as this is very important, and can bring a lot of elo, but no one simply wants or is able to do such patch. And, concerning chains, longer chains are some 80% of what chains are all about. So they do just chain pawns, i.e. defended pawns, and some other chain-related things, but this is only 20% of what chains are all about.
My idea for longer chains was very simple, I will repeat it here again, maybe someone will be able to push a patch with this idea:
You give bonus for longer chains, that is additional to other bonus for the chain pawns, including rank, file, etc.
You give this bonus only to longer chains of pawns of 3 or more pawns in all.
You count the number of chain pawns along the same diagonal (anybody, is it possible to do this?).
In case you find 3 or more pawns along the same diagonal, you give the additional bonus:
- 10cps for 3 chain pawns
- 20cps for 4 chain pawns
- 30cps for 5 chain pawns
That is all, in the end you have a very nice positional engine.
(but that includes base chain pawns in the calculations, they are also important)
Another idea I very much would like to see implemented is to tune bishop and knight values for closed positions. The Joona Kiiski closed patch got yellow on LTC, but if you tune the piece values for that patch, it will quite probably pass the test. For closed positions, knight value is tuned up by some 10-20cps, while bishop value down by the same 10-20cps. In the end, instead of yellow, you will get green, but people are testing all kinds of unimaginable eval ideas and somehow miss the more important ones.
I think that if it's a SRPT test and hasn't passed after 40k games but shows a positive score, then it means it adds almost no to none elo. Usually such tests consist of adding several lines of code, so if they show no to almost no improvement in terms of elo, they are not worth it; at least for SF philosophy.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Btw, does anybody know why a successful patch that gets although a slight, but still winning percentage after 40 000 games does not get integrated into Stockfish? If you are positive after 40 000 games, you simply integrate it, why not?
It's not that rare to see Marco Costalba committing a patch that indicate a very small-to none loss in elo but shows to be a simplification of code.
To Ronald de Man, where do I have to modify "#define S(mg, eg) make_score(mg, eg)" ? Because I see it in evaluate.cpp (line 98), in pawns.cpp (line 31) and in psqtab (line 25).
When I tried my SF modification locally, I got a 28 wins 12 losses and 60 draws in favor of my version. In the fishtest it went up to
Code: Select all
LLR: 1.26 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50] Total: 5214 W: 1029 L: 970 D: 3215