Page 1 of 2
Endgame woes
Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:22 am
by silentshark
So.. how do other engine authors stop their programs slipping into obviously drawn endgames?
An example for my engine is KRB vs KR. This is often drawn (I think - anyhow my engine can't win it). The problem I have is that this endgame might be drawn or might be a win (e.g. if the opponent's rook is en prise).
I think my engine is missing some ELO by slipping into drawn endgames when it may had a win. Other engines seem to have this nailed. From their evals, for example, sometimes I will see my engine at +5 and the opponent somewhere around +0 in endgames like the above.
Mine's a 'mailbox' engine (I think that's what it's called these days, i.e. not bitboard), so I'm after hints to help sort this
Thanks all,
Cheers,
Tom
Re: Endgame woes
Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:58 am
by xr_a_y
I use some endgame knowledge hard coded as WIN/LOST FIDE_DRAW HARD_TO_WIN ALMOST_DRAW
and divide (or multiply) the score by some factor when this happens also taking into account 50-moves rule.
Code: Select all
if ( MEntry.t == MaterialHash::Ter_WhiteWinWithHelper || MEntry.t == MaterialHash::Ter_BlackWinWithHelper ) return (white2Play?+1:-1)*(MaterialHash::helperTable[matHash](p,winningSideEG,score[sc_Mat][EG]));
else if ( MEntry.t == MaterialHash::Ter_Draw) { if (!isAttacked(p, kingSquare(p))) return context.drawScore(); }
else if ( MEntry.t == MaterialHash::Ter_MaterialDraw) { if (!isAttacked(p, kingSquare(p))) return context.drawScore(); }
else if ( MEntry.t == MaterialHash::Ter_WhiteWin || MEntry.t == MaterialHash::Ter_BlackWin) score.scalingFactor = 5 - 5*p.fifty/100.f;
else if ( MEntry.t == MaterialHash::Ter_HardToWin) score.scalingFactor = 0.5f - 0.5f*(p.fifty/100.f);
else if ( MEntry.t == MaterialHash::Ter_LikelyDraw) score.scalingFactor = 0.3f - 0.3f*(p.fifty/100.f);
Re: Endgame woes
Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:00 pm
by JohnWoe
I scale down the closer to 50 move rule it gets.
And I scale down also when material is close and looks drawish.
https://github.com/SamuraiDangyo/Sapeli ... li.c#L2302
Code: Select all
static void Eval_drawish()
{
if ( ! (BRD->white[0] | BRD->black[0])) // No pawns
EVAL_DRAWISH_FACTOR = 2;
else if (POPCOUNT(BRD->white[1] | BRD->white[2] | BRD->white[3] | BRD->white[4]) == 1 // Both have only 1 minor/major left
&& POPCOUNT(BRD->black[1] | BRD->black[2] | BRD->black[3] | BRD->black[4]) == 1)
EVAL_DRAWISH_FACTOR = 3;
}
Re: Endgame woes
Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2020 6:30 pm
by Ferdy
silentshark wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:22 am
So.. how do other engine authors stop their programs slipping into obviously drawn endgames?
An example for my engine is KRB vs KR. This is often drawn (I think - anyhow my engine can't win it). The problem I have is that this endgame might be drawn or might be a win (e.g. if the opponent's rook is en prise).
krbkr is indeed very difficult to win. Here are the conditions to win.
1. The IK (inferior king - materially inferior side) must be driven to the edge of the board.
2. The SK (superior king) must be very close to the IK.
3. The SR (superior rook) must guard the rank so that the IK cannot escape from the edge of the board, and drive out the IR.
If those conditions are present, give some bonus otherwise scale down the score by a factor of 8 or so.
Sample position that was already known in the 18th century, analyzed by Philidor.
[d]3k4/4r3/3K4/3B4/8/8/8/5R2 w - - c0 "KRBvKR, Philidor position, white wins";
Even when IK is already at the edge of the board, it is not enough to win if SK is far from IK and IR is actively preventing SK to get closer to IK.
[d]4k3/6R1/8/4K3/4B3/8/4r3/8 w - - c0 "KRBvKR, Cochrane defence position, black can draw";
Ref: 100 Endgames You Must Know, by Jesus de la Villa
I have the 3rd Edition. Good book for players and programmers who likes to implement endings on their engine.
Re: Endgame woes
Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2020 7:25 pm
by hgm
I always use a method I learned from Fruit: multiply the naive eval by a factor < 1 when the material combination is recognized as drawis. There are several classes of drawishness: without Pawns and not more than a minor ahead is divided by 8, and end-games that can convert to it by sacrificing away the last Pawn (so with 1 Pawn for the leading side and an extra minor for the lagging side) get a factor 0.5. When after the sacrifice a dead draw (like KNK) would result, it gets a factor 0.25. Dead draws get a factor 0, and also cut off the search. Other end-games where the leading side has no Pawns get a factor 0.5, as do unlike-Bishop end-games with not more than 2 Pawns difference. I usually make an exception for known wins against a bare King; KQK, KRK, KBBK and KBNK are not drawish.
Except for the draws the search is not affected, so if the position is not quiet and quickly converts to a more favorable one, the search will discover it.
Re: Endgame woes
Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:49 pm
by silentshark
This is cool feedback, thanks guys.
One challenge I have is that it's not cheap to calculate the material position (i.e. how many pieces each side has). Maybe I should look at material tables etc.
Re: Endgame woes
Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:51 pm
by Henk
Piece square table is all you need to create a bad engine. I added material points to values of piece square table as well
Re: Endgame woes
Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:18 am
by jdart
hgm wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 7:25 pm
I always use a method I learned from Fruit: multiply the naive eval by a factor < 1 when the material combination is recognized as drawis
I do something like that. See adjustMaterialScore and adjustMaterialScoreNoPawns in
https://github.com/jdart1/arasan-chess/ ... coring.cpp. I also support tablebases, though, which of course are more accurate for configurations that result in a hit.
--Jon
Re: Endgame woes
Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2020 8:02 am
by xr_a_y
silentshark wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:49 pm
This is cool feedback, thanks guys.
One challenge I have is that it's not cheap to calculate the material position (i.e. how many pieces each side has). Maybe I should look at material tables etc.
Gull material table is the way to go I think, with incremental material update.
Re: Endgame woes
Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:26 am
by silentshark
jdart wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:18 am
hgm wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 7:25 pm
I always use a method I learned from Fruit: multiply the naive eval by a factor < 1 when the material combination is recognized as drawis
I do something like that. See adjustMaterialScore and adjustMaterialScoreNoPawns in
https://github.com/jdart1/arasan-chess/ ... coring.cpp. I also support tablebases, though, which of course are more accurate for configurations that result in a hit.
--Jon
I will take a look, thanks. @hgm, when you write 'naive eval' I assume you mean the material + positional eval, and that's what gets adjusted?