Add bonuses for each threat instead of max threat value.

Use SPSA tuned values for all threat bonuses

STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 6074 W: 1284 L: 1160 D: 3630

LTC
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 13563 W: 2402 L: 2232 D: 8929

Bench: 6981908

Resolves #94
Rearrange check_time()

Remove an ugly workaround for a gcc
warning while there.

No functional change.
Assume UCI 'nodes' is int64_t instead of int

UCI specification is not clear on the size of
integers that are exchanged in the protocol, so
instead of a simple int, assume 'nodes' is a
int64_t because we need a bigger size to store
this value in many real cases, especialy with
very long searches.

No functional change.

Resolves #75
Removing some superfluous extern declarations

No functional change.

Resolves #93
Apply King Safety later in the endgame

Idea is to apply king safety later in the endgame. Previously, we didn't
apply KS in a RR vs. Q ending for example, which causes poor play.
Now we calculate king attacks when the attacking side has a queen or more.

STC with 8moves_v3
LLR: 3.06 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 38481 W: 6228 L: 5952 D: 26301

LTC with 2moves_v1
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 51053 W: 8670 L: 8353 D: 34030

Bench: 7514010

Resolves #98
Retire CACHE_LINE_ALIGNMENT

Speed tests showed no benefit.

No functional change.

Resolves #97
Prune ttMove like any other

This should reduce search inconsistencies, and doesn't seem to have a measurable ELO Impact:

STC with Hash=16
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 49264 W: 10076 L: 10007 D: 29181

LTC with Hash=64
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 82149 W: 14044 L: 14023 D: 54082

Plus an extra test, to make sure it doesn't regress with strong hash pressure:

STC with Hash=4
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.00,0.00]
Total: 21498 W: 4327 L: 4246 D: 12925

Bench: 7302735

Resolves #100
Be more optimistic in aspiration window

Be more optimistic wrt search instability, and set the unviolated bound
half window.

STC
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.00,4.00]
Total: 16362 W: 3371 L: 3197 D: 9794

LTC
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 21666 W: 3780 L: 3569 D: 14317

Bench: 6807896

Resolves #105
Codestyle massage Search::init()

* remove some erroneous comments, that were based on the ONE_PLY == 2.
* rename hd to d, because there's no more half-depth in SF.
* rescope variables into the for loops.
* reindent the for loops correctly.
* add a comment to explain the eval improving part (not so obvious to read
this code as array has 4 dimensions).

No functional change.
Introduce distance() and unify some API

Original work by Lucas.

No functional change.
Assorted code-style triviality

No functional change.
Retire pvMove in search()

Now we can directly replace it with
the definition resulting in simpler
and possibly faster code because
PvNode is evaluated at compile time.

No functional change.
Fix bounds of FutilityMoveCounts

This is a left-over from ONE_PLY == 2.

No functional change.

Resolves #107
Profile Build with Hash=16

16MB for 1" searches is more comensurate with the average use case.

And 16 is the default used by stockfish bench, so it makes sense to be
consistent, if only to have the same minimum memory requirement for using
SF and compiling it with PGO.

No functional change.

Resolves #109
Use Depth instead of int in search

And make it more ONE_PLY value independent,
although we are not there yet.

No functional change.

Resolves #111
Use if/else instead of goto

Real men jump/branch by hand...but
we prefer the humble way.

Moved also some uci info code where it
belongs, while there.

No functional change.

Resolves #110
Use quiet ttMove in qsearch() (7962287)

Daniel Jose reported that it was an elo gain in his engine:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=54290

STC: Hash=16
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 33067 W: 6670 L: 6571 D: 19826

LTC: Hash=64
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 41181 W: 7008 L: 6920 D: 27253

And another one to verify no regression with hash pressure:

STC: Hash=4
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-4.00,0.00]
Total: 25085 W: 5059 L: 4991 D: 15035

Verified that qsearch does not explode after this patch (recapture threshold).

Bench 7962287

Resolves #112
100% accurate PV display

This gives SF accurate PVs, such that the evaluation of the leaf node in
the PV matches the score backed up to the root (99% of the time.
q-search will use the value stored in the hash table instead of the eval
value sometimes).

One drawback is that fail-high/low only get a minimal 2 move PV.

It doesn't add any additional overhead to the non-PV codepath except an
extra eight bytes to the SearchStack structure in multi-threaded
searches.

A core part of this is not pruning based on TT score in PV nodes. This
was measured as not being a regression at multiple TCs, except for one
exception, fast TC with huge hash, which is not realistic for longer
searches.

STC - 1 thread, 128 mb hash
ELO: 1.42 +-3.1 (95%) LOS: 81.9%
Total: 20000 W: 4078 L: 3996 D: 11926

STC - 3 thread, 128 mb hash
ELO: -3.60 +-2.9 (95%) LOS: 0.8%
Total: 20000 W: 3575 L: 3782 D: 12643

STC - 3 thread, 8 mb hash
ELO: 0.12 +-2.9 (95%) LOS: 53.3%
Total: 20000 W: 3654 L: 3647 D: 12699

LTC - 3 thread, 32mb hash
ELO: 2.29 +-2.0 (95%) LOS: 98.8%
Total: 35740 W: 5618 L: 5382 D: 24740

Bench: 6984058

Resolves #102
Use DEPTH_MAX instead of MAX_PLY

When comparing to a Depth it is more
consistent to use DEPTH_MAX instead
of a int.

This is a subtle difference because we use
ply and depth almost interchangably in SF,
but they are different. FOr counting plies
makes ense to continue using ints, while
for Depth we have our specific enum.

This cleanly fixes a new Clang 3.5 warning:

No functional change.
Half History Max

STC
LLR: 3.35 (-2.94,2.94) [-0.50,3.50]
Total: 17993 W: 3740 L: 3508 D: 10745

LTC
LLR: 3.25 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 21346 W: 3691 L: 3453 D: 14202

Bench: 7694316

Resolves #120