Raise penalty blocked enemy pawn on 6th rank

Idea from Lyudmil Tsvetkov.

The value seems to be raised a bit abruptly, but as
Gary said, a blocked pawn on the sixth rank has been
instrumental in limiting king mobility in multiple
losses that I've seen from SF. A blocked pawn on fifth
rank is much less serious on the king safety impact.

Passed both STC
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 14551 W: 2750 L: 2607 D: 9194

and LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 43595 W: 6917 L: 6618 D: 30060

And even a retest at 60" fixed games 40K
ELO: 1.79 +-1.9 (95%) LOS: 97.0%
Total: 39889 W: 6018 L: 5813 D: 28058

bench: 7154916
Streamline implementation of Position::pretty()

Simpler and more in line with Bitboards::pretty()

No functional change.
Rise contempt when in advantage

This is a very discussed patch with many
argumentations pro and against. The fact is
it passed both STC:

LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 16305 W: 3001 L: 2855 D: 10449

And LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 34273 W: 5180 L: 4931 D: 24162

Although it is true that a correct test should
include foreign engines, we commit it anyhow so
people can test it out in the wild, under broader
conditions.

bench: 7384368
Reset DrawValue[] before new search

Spotted by Ronald de Man

bench: 7384368
Revert "Generalize shift_bb() to handle double pushes"

Seems to intorduce some compiler warning as
reported by Gary. Warning seems bogus, but
revert anyhow.

No functional change.
Move queen vs. 3 minors rule to imbalance tables

Tuned with CLOP after 57k games.

Simplification: tested in no-regression mode.

Passed both STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17254 W: 3159 L: 3032 D: 11063

And LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 32413 W: 4967 L: 4864 D: 22582

bench: 8082049
Correctly apply previous patch

Apply the correct values from previous patch.

bench: 8082049
Shuffle movepicker score

Believed to be a speed optimization as benched
on Windows with bench realtime affinity 0x1 deleting
highest and lowest runs:

Base	Test
1549259	1608202
1538115	1583934
1543168	1556938
1536365	1554179
1533026	1582010

Signature remains unchanged and gives anywhere from 1-2% nps
boost in analysis depending on number of cores used.

No functional change.
Remove penalty for knight when few enemy pawns

Tested in standard mode at STC and no-regression
mode at LTC:

STC
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 19503 W: 3502 L: 3349 D: 12652

LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 67474 W: 9974 L: 9921 D: 47579

bench: 8331217
Remove RookOn7th and merge values into psqt

Tested in no-regression mode:

STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 55678 W: 9954 L: 9892 D: 35832

LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 9238 W: 1448 L: 1311 D: 6479

bench: 7905850
Speed up picking of killers

Changing the order of the conditions gives
about 1% speed up!

No functional change.
Fix issues detected by Coverity Scan

Most of Coverity Scan reports are false
positives, but in rare cases we have
confirmed (very small) issues.

No functional change.
Speed up by almost 3%

This apparentely silly tweak allows
to speed up the bench by almost 3%.

Not clear why, repeating with perft,
the speed up vanishes.

Suggested by Jonathan Calovski.

No functional change.
Move game phase constants to enum Value

No functional change.
Reformatting in material.h

No functional change.
Remove rook passers eval completely

Tested in no-regression mode.

Passed STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17727 W: 3248 L: 3122 D: 11357

And (a very long!) LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 106327 W: 16258 L: 16265 D: 73804

bench: 7396783
We can add an integer to a Value

We have defined corresponding operators,
so rely on them to streamline the code
and increase readibility.

No functional change.
Remove some useless casts

No functional change.
Fix Intel compiler warnings

Fallout from previous patch: Intel compiler
is very noisy.

No functional change.
Don't need floor() in timeman.cpp

For positive numbers result is equivalent:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3300290/cast-to-int-vs-floor

Spotted by Joseph Ellis.

No functional change.