{"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/official-stockfish/Stockfish/comments/19229965","html_url":"https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/commit/eccccba0ce4e2d627cbe2adb1bf4a692d595ca99#commitcomment-19229965","id":19229965,"user":{"login":"Kingdefender","id":1170262,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1170262?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/Kingdefender","html_url":"https://github.com/Kingdefender","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Kingdefender/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Kingdefender/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Kingdefender/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Kingdefender/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Kingdefender/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Kingdefender/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Kingdefender/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Kingdefender/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Kingdefender/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"position":null,"line":null,"path":null,"commit_id":"eccccba0ce4e2d627cbe2adb1bf4a692d595ca99","created_at":"2016-09-29T19:54:22Z","updated_at":"2016-09-29T19:54:22Z","body":"This is all true of course. Any value above 554 can trigger the condition. But the question is if it really matters at LTC.  At STC you could use different margins and pass [-1.5, 4.5], but not LTC.\r\nThe patch from Michel was good though, no doubt about that. But the razor margin for 3 plies was different, I'm assuming that was in the original, three full plies razor margin, depth == 6 . Digging up an old formula from around 2010\r\n```   // Dynamic razoring margin based on depth\r\n  inline Value razor_margin(Depth d) { return Value(0x200 + 0x10 * int(d)); }```\r\nI'm not sure that was still in use when the patch was tested, later than 2010 I'm sure of that, but if it was then still with d==6 for three full plies this formula gives me a margin of 608 decimal. Slightly more than what it is now. Maybe it can be tried if with 600 you get a bit better results again. It is a functional change:\r\n\r\nValue(700) \r\n ===========================\r\nTotal time (ms) : 3141\r\nNodes searched  : 5801393\r\nNodes/second    : 1846989 \r\n\r\nValue(600)\r\n===========================\r\nTotal time (ms) : 2968\r\nNodes searched  : 5485598\r\nNodes/second    : 1848247\r\n\r\nValue(550) \r\n===========================\r\nTotal time (ms) : 3332\r\nNodes searched  : 6335042 No functional change because <= 554\r\nNodes/second    : 1901273\r\n"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"Kingdefender"}}