Fix a bug in pawns eval tracing

Instead of totals we were showing white and
black values.

Spotted by Sven Schüle

No functional change.
Pinned pieces affect king safety

Here the new idea is to link pinned pieces
with king safety.

Passed both STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 10047 W: 1867 L: 1737 D: 6443

And LTC
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 10419 W: 1692 L: 1543 D: 7184

bench: 8325087
Restore old aspiration window to 16

Tested directly at LTC because previous long
test series on this topic shows it is TC dependant.

Tested with no-regression mode because gets rid of
an ugly and ad-hoc rule.

Test at LTC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 67918 W: 10590 L: 10541 D: 46787

bench: 7926803
Further simplification of TT replace strategy

No functional change
Raise VALUE_INFINITE

In some legal positions like this one:
R6R/3Q4/1Q4Q1/4Q3/2Q4Q/Q4Q2/Np1Q4/kB1N1KB1  b -- 0 1

We can have a very high score, in this case 30177 and 29267
for midgame and endgame respectively, and because
VALUE_INFINITE = 30001 we have an assert in interpolate()

Midgame and endgame scores are stored in 16 bit signed integers
so we can rise VALUE_INFINITE a little bit. This does not fix
the possibility of overflow in general case, just makes the
condition more difficult to trigger and anyhow better uses all
the score width.

Raising VALUE_INFINITE to 32000 seems to fix the problem for this
particular case.

No functional change.
Show evaluation from white POV in trace

We chose this instead of negamax sign convention
(ie. from the point of view of the side to move)
because it is more in line to how the eval
table is presented.

Also some tweak to formatting while there.

No functional change.
Fix a warning with MSVC 2010

Warning C4804: '<' : unsafe use of type 'bool' in operation

No functional change.
Fix a compile error with Intel C++

Error: a value of type "int" cannot be assigned
to an entity of type "Value"

No functional change.
Do not workaround function argument evaluation

Rewrite options initialization to do not trying to
hack upon the undefined evaluation order of function
arguments.

No functional change.
Drop not defended by pawn condition

Passed no-regression test both at STC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 96554 W: 17563 L: 17572 D: 61419

and at LTC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 31891 W: 4905 L: 4801 D: 22185

bench: 7720896
Make operator<< to return void

This should help preventing misuse.

No functional change.
Queen vs. 3 pieces imbalance

Passed both STC
LLR: 7.32 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 98108 W: 18087 L: 17576 D: 62445

And LTC
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 15082 W: 2417 L: 2248 D: 10417

bench: 7717336
Update Readme to 128 max threads

No functional change.
Speed up apply_weight

Speed up by about 2% this hot path function pre-calculating
midgame and endgame values of the weight.

No functional change.
Remove QueenOn7th and QueenOnPawn

Small simplification.

Passed SPRT(-3,1) both at STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 17051 W: 3132 L: 3005 D: 10914

and LTC:
LLR: 4.55 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 24890 W: 3842 L: 3646 D: 17402

The rationale behind this is that I've never managed to add a
Queen on 7th rank bonus in DiscoCheck, because it never showed
to be positive (evne slightly) in testing. The only thing that
worked is Rook on 7th rank.

In terms of SF code, it seemed natural to group it with QueenOnPawn
as well as those are done together. I know you're against groupping
in general, but when it comes to non regression test, you are being
more conservative by groupping. If the group passes SPRT(-3,1) it's
safer to commit, than test every component in SPRT(-3,1) and end up
with the risk of commiting several -1 elo regression instead of just
one -1 elo regression.

In chess terms, perhaps it's just easier to manouver a Queen (which
can more also diagonaly) than a Rook. Therefore you can let the search
do its job without needing eval ad-hoc terms to guide it. For the Rook
which takes more moves to manouver such eval terms can be (marginally)
useful.

bench: 7473314
Smaller and faster profile-build binaries

I have noticed that increasing the bench depth produces
progressively smaller and slightly faster executables at
the cost of longer compile times.  Also using bench "time"
instead of "depth" seems to produce slightly smaller/faster
executables  given comparable compile times.

I have made a new Makefile that generates smaller and
about 1% to 2% faster profile executables at only a
little extra compile time.  On  my mobile 2GHz i7 a
full profile build time goes from 3'48" to 4'13" and
the exe goes down by 5% from 416,310 bytes to 395,567
bytes.

No functional change.
Small tidy up in move_to_san

No functional change.
Some more work in pretty_pv

No functional change.
Sync some common names

No functional change.
Rescale UCI scores to PawnValueEg

This is more consistent with what other engines are doing.
Often people thinks that SF's scores are overblown. In the
end, it just boils down to the arbitrary way of rescaling them.

No functional change.