Since you’re here...

... we have a small favour to ask. More people, like you, are reading and supporting our blog: "Chess Engines Diary". And unlike many other sites and blogs, we made the choice to keep our articles open for all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay.

We hope you will consider supporting us today. We need your support to continue to exist, because good entries are more and more work time. Every reader contribution, however big or small, is so valuable. Support "Chess Engines Diary" even a small amount– and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

============================== My email: jotes@go2.pl



Stockfish 17050404 - new version!



Stockfish, chess engine UCI
Leader rating list JCER = 3405
๐Ÿ”ฌ Author: Joergoster 

More:

Timestamp: 1493866000 

Fix multiPV issue #502 

In general, this patch handles the cases where we don't have a valid score for each PV line in a multiPV search. This can happen if the search has been stopped in an unfortunate moment while still in the aspiration loop. The patch consists of two parts. 

Part 1: The new PVIdx was already part of the k-best pv's in the last iteration, and we therefore have a valid pv and score to output from the last iteration. This is taken care of with: 

bool updated = (i <= PVIdx && rootMoves[i].score != -VALUE_INFINITE); 

Case 2: The new PVIdx was NOT part of the k-best pv's in the last iteration, and we have no valid pv and score to output. Not from the current nor from the previous iteration. To avoid this, we are now also considering the previous score when sorting, so that the PV lines with no actual but with a valid previous score are pushed up again, and the previous score can be displayed. 

bool operator<(const RootMove& m) const { 
return m.score != score ? m.score < score : m.previousScore < previousScore; } // Descending sort 

I also added an assertion in UCI::value() to possibly catch similar issues earlier. 

No functional change. 

Closes #502 
Closes #1074  

⭐⭐⭐   Stockfish 17050404 - download



Comments