Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make IIR for PvNodes less aggressive #5834

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Vizvezdenec
Copy link
Contributor

@Vizvezdenec Vizvezdenec commented Jan 30, 2025

In line with previous experiments on improving scaling of IIR.
Now it disables IIR for pv nodes with depth <= 2, so disallowing for it to perform a qsearch dive.
Fixed games STC:
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/679ae6a951037ccaf3e30fb3
Elo: -10.36 ± 2.5 (95%) LOS: 0.0%
Total: 20020 W: 4902 L: 5499 D: 9619
Ptnml(0-2): 128, 2653, 4976, 2194, 59
Passed VVLTC with STC bounds:
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/67954f2e406a4efe9eb7d266
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) <0.00,2.00>
Total: 196758 W: 50725 L: 50258 D: 95775
Ptnml(0-2): 21, 18153, 61564, 18620, 21
Passed VVLTC with LTC bounds:
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/6795a26bf6281b7d7b18698b
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) <0.50,2.50>
Total: 323092 W: 83679 L: 82857 D: 156556
Ptnml(0-2): 48, 29475, 101659, 30335, 29
bench 3624739

Copy link

clang-format 18 needs to be run on this PR.
If you do not have clang-format installed, the maintainer will run it when merging.
For the exact version please see https://packages.ubuntu.com/noble/clang-format-18.

(execution 13044606082 / attempt 1)

@@ -848,13 +848,9 @@ Value Search::Worker::search(
// Step 10. Internal iterative reductions
// For PV nodes without a ttMove as well as for deep enough cutNodes, we decrease depth.
// (* Scaler) Especially if they make IIR more aggressive.
if ((PvNode || (cutNode && depth >= 7)) && !ttData.move)
if (((PvNode || cutNode) && depth >= 7 - 4 * PvNode) && !ttData.move)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

perhaps it's simpler to just write !allNode instead of (PvNode || cutNode)?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

well this is a trivial cleanup material, up to maintainers

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants