I had fixed 99% of that a few years ago. Last week when the FEN question first came up, I caught the total promotions can't be greater than 8 - pawns. However, the code had gotten longer and when I did the copy, I failed to notice there was more below. When we started the FEN discussion, I started making up FENs that would trip up on any of the tests I had, to make sure there were no edge cases that got by. The only one I found that caused an issue was exactly the case you mentioned. Another qualification on the number of pieces of each type. Later today I posted the correct copy/past which shows all the tests. Note that I don't just produce an error. I try to be very specific to tell the user exactly what was wrong. I've been doing this for 30+ years after running into the O/S on our old xerox machine (initially UTS). The command line interpreter was called "tel" and it had a great error reporting approach. For ANY command that was illegal, no matter what the reason, it said "eh?". REALLY informative when trying to debug a shell script. I complained as I knew the O/S guys personally. Their fix, in the next version, was "eh? at 25. Which means it found some sort of an error that apparently started at character 25. That got real old, real quick. It reminded me of our old IBM 1620. You compiled a program, it produced an object deck of cards. You stuck those in the card reader, it would link and load into memory and start executing. If the program failed in any way, a red "check stop" light came on and the machine was now completely dead. You could flip switches to look directly into memory, which was "the debugger" of the 60's.Terje wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:07 pmA position with 6wp 4wn 4wb 0wr 0wq 1wk will pass the test, despite having 4 promoted pieces for only 2 missing pawns, no?bob wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:00 pm I coded this in a simple way. Things like wp are just the popcnt(white pawns).
if (wp > 8) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many white pawns\n");
error = 1;
}
if (wp + wn > 10) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many white knights\n");
error = 1;
}
if (wp + wb > 10) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many white bishops\n");
error = 1;
}
if (wp + wr > 10) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many white rooks\n");
error = 1;
}
if (wp + wq > 9) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many white queens\n");
error = 1;
}
if (wk == 0) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, no white king\n");
error = 1;
}
if (wk > 1) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, multiple white kings\n");
error = 1;
}
if (wp + wn + wb + wr + wq > 15) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many white pieces\n");
error = 1;
}
Since that is hardly ever executed I made it simple so that it would be a very small piece of code that can be proven to be bug-free. Repeat for black. I use the "error=1" idea so that I can display ALL the flaws in the position, rather than just exiting after the first. At the bottom, it returns error which is initialized to zero and stays there unless one or more errors are found.
BTW the above will catch all illegal positions. Can't have more than 9 or 10 of each piece type. 8 for pawns. Adding up all pieces and pawns has to be <= 15.
in piece capture case, I may be missing why purpose defeated. For a piece capture, the two max passers would appear to be the own pawn that did the capture and an opp pawn which was on same file as own pawn and now has a clear path. Why can’t we usefully apply the fact that max adjust for EITHER side is 1 unit per missing opponent piece ? No doubt I’ve not thought this through enough ...
So maximally 12 Pawns can promote, without any pieces captured.
it’s positively a miracle how anything ever mentioned ever always is to be found in a prior Craftybob wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:23 amI had fixed 99% of that a few years ago. Last week when the FEN question first came up, I caught the total promotions can't be greater than 8 - pawns. However, the code had gotten longer and when I did the copy, I failed to notice there was more below. When we started the FEN discussion, I started making up FENs that would trip up on any of the tests I had, to make sure there were no edge cases that got by. The only one I found that caused an issue was exactly the case you mentioned. Another qualification on the number of pieces of each type. Later today I posted the correct copy/past which shows all the tests.Terje wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:07 pmA position with 6wp 4wn 4wb 0wr 0wq 1wk will pass the test, despite having 4 promoted pieces for only 2 missing pawns, no?bob wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:00 pm I coded this in a simple way. Things like wp are just the popcnt(white pawns).
if (wp > 8) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many white pawns\n");
error = 1;
}
if (wp + wn > 10) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many white knights\n");
error = 1;
}
if (wp + wb > 10) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many white bishops\n");
error = 1;
}
if (wp + wr > 10) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many white rooks\n");
error = 1;
}
if (wp + wq > 9) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many white queens\n");
error = 1;
}
if (wk == 0) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, no white king\n");
error = 1;
}
if (wk > 1) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, multiple white kings\n");
error = 1;
}
if (wp + wn + wb + wr + wq > 15) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many white pieces\n");
error = 1;
}
Since that is hardly ever executed I made it simple so that it would be a very small piece of code that can be proven to be bug-free. Repeat for black. I use the "error=1" idea so that I can display ALL the flaws in the position, rather than just exiting after the first. At the bottom, it returns error which is initialized to zero and stays there unless one or more errors are found.
BTW the above will catch all illegal positions. Can't have more than 9 or 10 of each piece type. 8 for pawns. Adding up all pieces and pawns has to be <= 15.
Note that I don't just produce an error. I try to be very specific to tell the user exactly what was wrong. I've been doing this for 30+ years after running into the O/S on our old xerox machine (initially UTS). The command line interpreter was called "tel" and it had a great error reporting approach. For ANY command that was illegal, no matter what the reason, it said "eh?". REALLY informative when trying to debug a shell script. I complained as I knew the O/S guys personally. Their fix, in the next version, was "eh? at 25. Which means it found some sort of an error that apparently started at character 25. That got real old, real quick. It reminded me of our old IBM 1620. You compiled a program, it produced an object deck of cards. You stuck those in the card reader, it would link and load into memory and start executing. If the program failed in any way, a red "check stop" light came on and the machine was now completely dead. You could flip switches to look directly into memory, which was "the debugger" of the 60's.
That's why my error checking code is so long, so that it can produce very precise messages explaining what was wrong.
Well, capture of a piece creates two passers, but one of the passers (the opposing one) will be needed to recover that piece. So that side would not get any more pieces than it had. This is what I meant by 'defeats the purpose'. If you do PxP you not only make the capturing Pawn and the opposing one a passer (well, actually just an unblocked Pawn), but also the Pawn opposing the one you captured.chrisw wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 2:15 pmin piece capture case, I may be missing why purpose defeated. For a piece capture, the two max passers would appear to be the own pawn that did the capture and an opp pawn which was on same file as own pawn and now has a clear path. Why can’t we usefully apply the fact that max adjust for EITHER side is 1 unit per missing opponent piece ? No doubt I’ve not thought this through enough ...So maximally 12 Pawns can promote, without any pieces captured.
This can still fail if we have 2 wb on same color squares, as it doesn't recognize that one of them must have been promoted (unless I'm missing something).bob wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:55 pm OK, am back. Here is a better cut and paste from a longer terminal window.This was modified a few days ago when the FEN parsing thread started. I ran dozens of intentionally broken FEN strings through it and to the best of my knowledge it works. Could have always overlooked a special case, but I tried all the obvious ones in a large batch test.Code: Select all
wp = PopCnt(Pawns(white)); wn = PopCnt(Knights(white)); wb = PopCnt(Bishops(white)); wr = PopCnt(Rooks(white)); wq = PopCnt(Queens(white)); wk = PopCnt(Kings(white)); if (wp > 8) { Print(4095, "ERROR-- illegal position, too many white pawns\n"); error = 1; } if (wn > 10) { Print(4095, "ERROR-- illegal position, too many white knights\n"); error = 1; } if (wb > 10) { Print(4095, "ERROR-- illegal position, too many white bishops\n"); error = 1; } if (wr > 10) { Print(4095, "ERROR-- illegal position, too many white rooks\n"); error = 1; } if (wq > 9) { Print(4095, "ERROR-- illegal position, too many white queens\n"); error = 1; } if (wk == 0) { Print(4095, "ERROR-- illegal position, no white king\n"); error = 1; } if (wk > 1) { Print(4095, "ERROR-- illegal position, multiple white kings\n"); error = 1; } if (wp + wn + wb + wr + wq > 15) { Print(4095, "ERROR-- illegal position, too many white pieces\n"); error = 1; } // remove original pieces from the counts so that wq and such will only count promoted queens, etc. wq = Max(wq-1, 0); wr = Max(wr-2, 0); wb = Max(wb-2, 0); wn = Max(wn-2, 0); if (wq + wr + wb + wn > 8 - wp) { Print(4095, "ERROR-- white has promoted too many pawns\n"); error = 1; } if (Pawns(white) & (rank_mask[RANK1] | rank_mask[RANK8])) { Print(4095, "ERROR-- illegal position, white pawns on first/eighth rank(s)\n"); error = 1; }
There is a hole in the above but I don't see any way to correct it without game history. IE if you have two white queens on the board, they COULD be 1 original + 1 promoted; OR, they could be two promoted queens. Can't determine that without information that is not included in FEN. I ignore the possibility myself since there appears to be no way to fix it.
You can look at older versions of Crafty if you don't believe it. There are dozens of versions hanging around.
Code: Select all
* 19.20 Bug in the EvaluateMaterial() (bad trade) code that would not *
* penalize a single piece vs 3 pawns properly. Now the penalty is *
* added in unless the side with the piece has nothing else to go *
* with it at all (no pawns or other pieces). Pawn scoring changed, *
* doubled pawns were scored too badly because the penalties were *
* added twice (as expected) but they were set as if they were just *
* added once. Eval command also had a bug in displaying the pawn *
* evaluation parameters. Move input changed to accept pawn *
* promotions of the form a8Q (this is needed as ChessBase violates *
* the PGN/SAN standard that mandates a8=Q as the proper syntax for *
* pawn promotions.) annoying glitch in epdglue.c that would *
* produce the wrong score for positions with exactly one legal move *
* was fixed. <b>New InvalidPosition() function verifies that FEN *
* setup positions are reasonable, without extra pawns or too many *
* pieces total, etc.</b> Passed pawn to 7th search extension removed, *
* mate threat extension tuned down to 1/2 ply. Bug in SetBoard() *
* fixed. This bug made it impossible to import many epd records *
* due to incorrectly handling the wtm flag. This was introduced in *
* the recent changes to disallow certain types of illegal positions *
* that were impossible (more than 9 queens of one color, etc.) new *
* eval term for space added.
Code: Select all
/* last modified 06/13/05 */
/*
*******************************************************************************
* *
* InvalidPosition() is used to determine if the position just entered via a *
* FEN-string or the "edit" command is legal. This includes the expected *
* tests for too many pawns or pieces for one side, pawns on impossible *
* squares, and the like. *
* *
*******************************************************************************
*/
int InvalidPosition(TREE * RESTRICT tree)
{
int error = 0;
int wp, wn, wb, wr, wq, bp, bn, bb, br, bq;
wp = PopCnt(WhitePawns);
wn = PopCnt(WhiteKnights);
wb = PopCnt(WhiteBishops);
wr = PopCnt(WhiteRooks);
wq = PopCnt(WhiteQueens);
bp = PopCnt(BlackPawns);
bn = PopCnt(BlackKnights);
bb = PopCnt(BlackBishops);
br = PopCnt(BlackRooks);
bq = PopCnt(BlackQueens);
if (wp > 8) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many white pawns\n");
error = 1;
}
if (wp + wn > 10) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many white knights\n");
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many white knights\n");
error = 1;
}
if (wp + wb > 10) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many white bishops\n");
error = 1;
}
if (wp + wr > 10) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many white rooks\n");
error = 1;
}
if (wp + wq > 9) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many white queens\n");
error = 1;
}
if (wp + wn + wb + wr + wq > 15) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many white pieces\n");
error = 1;
}
if (WhitePawns & (rank_mask[RANK1] | rank_mask[RANK8])) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, white pawns on first/eighth rank(s)\n");
error = 1;
}
if (bp > 8) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many black pawns\n");
error = 1;
}
if (bp + bn > 10) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many black knights\n");
error = 1;
}
if (bp + bb > 10) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many black bishops\n");
error = 1;
}
if (bp + br > 10) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many black rooks\n");
error = 1;
}
if (bp + bq > 9) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many black queens\n");
error = 1;
}
if (bp + bn + bb + br + bq > 15) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, too many black pieces\n");
error = 1;
}
if (BlackPawns & (rank_mask[RANK1] | rank_mask[RANK8])) {
Print(4095, "illegal position, black pawns on first/eighth rank(s)\n");
error = 1;
}
if (Check(!wtm)) {
Print(4095, "ERROR side not on move is in check!\n");
error = 1;
}
return (error);