{"push_id":3115139730,"size":13,"distinct_size":13,"ref":"refs/heads/master","head":"5c2fbcd09b43bd6867780a3ace303ffb1e09d763","before":"6ab92d2e1c417fa7a9fd87eee0add2bf02112296","commits":[{"sha":"de7182f4eee33029a7b79f6b097db06357669127","author":{"name":"Steinar H. Gunderson","email":"c99ba02c2f909c5700f8d9dc18b740a54f1b1866@bigfoot.com"},"message":"Turn on MADV_RANDOM for Syzygy mmaps (on Unix-like builds)\n\nWhen running on a cloud VM (n1-highcpu-96) with several NVMe SSDs and\nsome non-SSDs for tablebases, I noticed that the average SSD request size was\nmore than 256 kB. This doesn't make a lot of sense for Syzygy tablebases,\nwhich have a block size of 32 bytes and very low locality.\n\nSeemingly, the tablebase access patterns during probing make the OS,\nat least Linux, think that readahead is advantageous; normally, it\ngives up doing readahead if there are too many misses, but it doesn't,\nperhaps due to the fairly high overall hit rates. (It seems the kernel cannot\ndistinguish between reading a block that was paged in because the userspace\nwanted it explicitly, and one that was read as part of readahead.)\n\nSetting MADV_RANDOM effectively turns off readahead, which causes\nthe request size to drop to 4 kB. In the aforemented cloud VM test,\nthis roughly tripled the amount of I/O requests that were able to go\nthrough, while reducing the total traffic from 2.8 GB/sec to 56 MB/sec\n(moving the bottleneck to the non-SSDs; it seems the SSDs could have\nsustained many more requests).\n\nCloses https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1829\n\nNo functional change.","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/beyondCritics/Stockfish/commits/de7182f4eee33029a7b79f6b097db06357669127"},{"sha":"7b6fa353a3858b092e1a43ef69b3035cb5d3b5c0","author":{"name":"31m059","email":"5a46a3f19c2aebffb0cdb50e0853db2cc7190558@users.noreply.github.com"},"message":"Simplify casting extension\n\nOn November 16th, before the removal of the depth condition, I tried\nrevising castling extensions to only handle castling moves, rather than\nmoves that change castling rights generally. It appeared to be a slight\nElo gain at STC but insufficient to pass [0, 4] (+0.5 Elo), but what I\noverlooked was that it made pos.can_castle(us) irrelevant and should\nhave been a simplification. Recent discussion with @Chess13234 and\nMichael Chaly (@Vizvezdenec) inspired me to take a second look, and\nthe simplification continues to pass when rebased on the current master.\n\nThis replaces two conditions with one, because type_of(move) == CASTLING\nimplies pos.can_castle(Us), allowing us to remove the latter condition.\n\nSTC:\nLLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]\nTotal: 110948 W: 24209 L: 24263 D: 62476\nhttp://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf8f65c0ebc5902bced3a63\n\nLTC:\nLLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]\nTotal: 88283 W: 14681 L: 14668 D: 58934\nhttp://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bf994a60ebc5902bced4349\n\nBench: 3939338","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/beyondCritics/Stockfish/commits/7b6fa353a3858b092e1a43ef69b3035cb5d3b5c0"},{"sha":"340e9ea5096fb1c8e4a0914827f1af1d30075039","author":{"name":"Sebastian Buchwald","email":"aa5ddc582937fac10a8c51bc75f5a067eeaf97a5@kit.edu"},"message":"Use emplace_back() in TB code\n\nThe patch was tested for correctness by running bench with and\nwithout the change against current master, and the tablebase hit\nnumbers were found to be identical in both cases. See the pull\nrequest comments for details:\nhttps://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/1826\n\nNo functional change.","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/beyondCritics/Stockfish/commits/340e9ea5096fb1c8e4a0914827f1af1d30075039"},{"sha":"622360ad666d13f5c93ccceff49924f1301db965","author":{"name":"Stéphane Nicolet","email":"dc5888237d439b473359081fc99470407a7c956d@free.fr"},"message":"Update list of authors\n\nNo functional change","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/beyondCritics/Stockfish/commits/622360ad666d13f5c93ccceff49924f1301db965"},{"sha":"b4c239b625285307c5871f1104dc3fb80aa6d5d2","author":{"name":"Stéphane Nicolet","email":"dc5888237d439b473359081fc99470407a7c956d@free.fr"},"message":"Stockfish 10\n\nOfficial release version of Stockfish 10.\n\nThis is also the 10th anniversary version of the Stockfish project, which\nstarted exactly ten years ago! I wish to extend a huge thank you to\nall contributors and authors in our amazing community :-)\n\nBench: 3939338","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/beyondCritics/Stockfish/commits/b4c239b625285307c5871f1104dc3fb80aa6d5d2"},{"sha":"9b276a6596eec6fbdcdb29d55ea0b15f5057c853","author":{"name":"Stéphane Nicolet","email":"dc5888237d439b473359081fc99470407a7c956d@free.fr"},"message":"Restore development version\n\nNo functional change","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/beyondCritics/Stockfish/commits/9b276a6596eec6fbdcdb29d55ea0b15f5057c853"},{"sha":"79e3710fd224e6e052f6bc5420a8f8f03bf41e18","author":{"name":"ElbertoOne","email":"8551400d6a20639e63348727914a31874979d408@gmail.com"},"message":"Remove Overload bonus\n\nCompensate by giving the Hanging bonus to weak doubly-attacked\nnon pawn enemies pieces.\n\nSTC: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bfd53c40ebc5902bced9237\nLLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]\nTotal: 62107 W: 13664 L: 13622 D: 34821\n\nLTC: http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bfd74700ebc5902bced9618\nLLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]\nTotal: 86406 W: 14381 L: 14365 D: 57660\n\nA possible follow up would be to tune the hanging bonus and/or try to\nsimplify the hanging bonus condition.\n\nBench: 3810849","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/beyondCritics/Stockfish/commits/79e3710fd224e6e052f6bc5420a8f8f03bf41e18"},{"sha":"982fd9c8bce85d4cd8dca32759587d7606385e0e","author":{"name":"Miguel Lahoz","email":"031d7fc1d34fb18f3de96de593cc312f218d8795@protonmail.com"},"message":"Penalize refuted killers in continuation history\n\nCurrently we apply a penalty in continuation history for refuted TT moves.\nWe can use the same idea to also penalize refuted killer moves in continuation\nhistory.\n\nSTC:\nhttp://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c00ccbd0ebc5902bcedd768\nLLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]\nTotal: 54366 W: 12086 L: 11687 D: 30593\n\nLTC:\nhttp://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c0107880ebc5902bceddc9c\nLLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]\nTotal: 25457 W: 4302 L: 4078 D: 17077\n\nBench: 3419069","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/beyondCritics/Stockfish/commits/982fd9c8bce85d4cd8dca32759587d7606385e0e"},{"sha":"9dc6d270fc207d6715578b57a1cdf655527ec5fe","author":{"name":"Vizvezdenec","email":"38abe72fc8e48e7d1101edc3a231534dfbdbd8ce@gmail.com"},"message":"Introduce concept of double pawn protection.\n\nExclude doubly protected by pawns squares when calculating attackers on\nking ring. Idea of this patch is not to count attackers if they attack\nonly squares that are protected by two pawns.\n\nSTC\nLLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]\nTotal: 70040 W: 15476 L: 15002 D: 39562\nhttp://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c0354860ebc5902bcee1106\n\nLTC\nLLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]\nTotal: 16530 W: 2795 L: 2607 D: 11128\nhttp://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c0385080ebc5902bcee14b5\n\nThis is third king safety patch in recent times so we probably need\nretuning of king safety parameters.\n\nBench: 3057978","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/beyondCritics/Stockfish/commits/9dc6d270fc207d6715578b57a1cdf655527ec5fe"},{"sha":"33d95482182e459eb033de47a31f142880aa9afb","author":{"name":"protonspring","email":"a17fed27eaa842282862ff7c1b9c8395a26ac320@whiteley.org"},"message":"pseudo_legal() and MOVE_NONE\n\nMOVE_NONE is represented as SQ_A1 to SQ_A1 which is never pseudo_legal.\n\nSTC\nLLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]\nTotal: 38807 W: 8363 L: 8275 D: 22169\nhttp://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c05f11d0ebc5902bcee4c86\n\nNo functional change","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/beyondCritics/Stockfish/commits/33d95482182e459eb033de47a31f142880aa9afb"},{"sha":"b19ad4977c0ee427eeff9c11bd7c4da9210cd090","author":{"name":"xoto10","email":"796d9724b06bc2cf46637856d8505710f7409d87@gmail.com"},"message":"Simplify time manager in search()\n\nRemove the F[] array which I find unhelpful and rename `improvingFactor` to\n`fallingEval` since larger values indicate a falling eval and more time use.\n\nI realise a test was not strictly necessary, but I ran STC [-3,1] just to\ncheck there are no foolish errors before creating the pull request:\n\nSTC:\nLLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]\nTotal: 35804 W: 7753 L: 7659 D: 20392\nhttp://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5bef3a0c0ebc595e0ae39c19\n\nIt was then suggested to clean the constants around `fallingEval`\nto make it more clear this is a factor around ~1 that adjusts time\nup or downwards depending on some conditions. We then ran a double\ntest with this simplification suggestion:\n\nSTC:\nLLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]\nTotal: 68435 W: 14936 L: 14906 D: 38593\nhttp://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c02c56b0ebc5902bcee0184\n\nLTC:\nLLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]\nTotal: 37258 W: 6324 L: 6230 D: 24704\nhttp://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c030a520ebc5902bcee0a32\n\nNo functional change","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/beyondCritics/Stockfish/commits/b19ad4977c0ee427eeff9c11bd7c4da9210cd090"},{"sha":"7b4f9c37cb859ba6258ba90d11358879c0b2c57d","author":{"name":"VoyagerOne","email":"ace7f16dc79366a592c6b81c420853f4b5758c68@gmail.com"},"message":"Simplify Killer Move Penalty\n\nSTC:\nLLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]\nTotal: 20816 W: 4525 L: 4402 D: 11889\nhttp://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c017cb90ebc5902bcede5b4\n\nLTC:\nLLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]\nTotal: 39287 W: 6401 L: 6309 D: 26577\nhttp://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5c01825e0ebc5902bcede686\n\nBench: 3773021","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/beyondCritics/Stockfish/commits/7b4f9c37cb859ba6258ba90d11358879c0b2c57d"},{"sha":"5c2fbcd09b43bd6867780a3ace303ffb1e09d763","author":{"name":"Stéphane Nicolet","email":"dc5888237d439b473359081fc99470407a7c956d@free.fr"},"message":"Revert \"pseudo_legal() and MOVE_NONE\"\n\nThis reverts commit 33d95482182e459eb033de47a31f142880aa9afb ,\nwhich crashed in DEBUG mode because of the following assert in position.h\n\n````\nAssertion failed: (is_ok(m)), function capture, file ./position.h, line 369.\n````\n\nNo functional change","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/beyondCritics/Stockfish/commits/5c2fbcd09b43bd6867780a3ace303ffb1e09d763"}]}
{"actor":{"display_login":"beyondCritics"}}