Do not set default value for architeture in Makefile

Fixes a regression that ARCH parameter was not properly validated.
Invalid value would default to generic 32-bit build.

No functional change.
Variable null-move value based reduction

Instead of a fixed reduction of ONE_PLY, now
Null move dynamic reduction based on value can
grow larger in case we are above beta of a value
much higher then PawnValueMg.

Note that now an eval returning VALUE_KNOWN_WIN
makes null search to drop in qsearch.

Passed both short TC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 26141 W: 4871 L: 4699 D: 16571

And long TC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,6.00]
Total: 33695 W: 5309 L: 5056 D: 23330

bench: 7356053
Grammar fix in MovePicker::next_move

Thanks to Lyudmil Antonov and Michel Van den Bergh
for spotting this and suggesting the fix.

No functional change.
Fix null reduction formula

Depth is already dependent on the actual value
of ONE_PLY, in particular can be expressed like:

Depth = n * ONE_PLY

And because formula is used to calculate R that is
also dependent on the value of ONE_PLY and can be
expressed like:

R = x * ONE_PLY

We don't want to divide depth by a 'ply' value but
directly by an integer number.

Spotted by sf-x

No functional change.
Reduce VALUE_KNOWN_WIN to 10000

With some positions like

8/8/8/2p2K2/1pp5/br1p1b2/2p2r2/qqkqq3 w - -

The eval score is higher than VALUE_INFINITE because
is the sum of VALUE_KNOWN_WIN plus a big material
advantage. This leads to an assert. Here are the
steps to reproduce:

Compile SF with debug=yes then do

./stockfish
position fen 8/8/8/2p2K2/1pp5/br1p1b2/2p2r2/qqkqq3 w - -
go depth 1

This patch fixes the issue in this case, but do exsist
other positions for which the patch is not enough and
we will need to limit the eval score to be sure not
overflow the limit.

Note that is not possible to increase the value of
VALUE_INFINITE because should remain within int16_t
type to be stored in a TT entry.

bench: 7356053
Tweak bishop PSQT tables

Tuned after 49K iterations of SPSA.

Passed both short TC:
LLR: 2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [-1.50,4.50]
Total: 14231 W: 2684 L: 2542 D: 9005

And long TC:
LLR: 2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 87556 W: 13757 L: 13342 D: 60457

bench: 6875743
H-file penalty and center bonus

After almost 50K at long TC it seems
slightly positive:

ELO: 1.73 +-1.8 (95%) LOS: 97.3%
Total: 47122 W: 7507 L: 7273 D: 32342

bench: 8430785
Better document razoring

Use ralpha instead of rbeta

* rbeta is confusing people. It took THREE attempts to code razoring
at PV nodes correctly in a recent test, because of the rbeta trick.
Unnecessary tricks should be avoided.

* The more correct and self-documenting way of doing this, is to say
that we use a zero window around alpha-margin, not beta-margin.
The fact that, because we only do it at PV nodes, alpha happens to be
beta-1 and that the current stuff with rbeta works, may be correct,
but is confusing.

Remove the misleading and partially erroneous comment about returning
v + margin:

* comments should explain what the code does, not what it could have done.

* this comment is partially wrong in saying that v+margin is "logical",
  and that it is "surprising" that is doesn't work.

From a theoretical perspective, at least 3 ways of doing this are equally
defendable:

1/ fail hard: return alpha: The most conservative. We bet that the search
will fail low, but we don't know by how much and don't want to take risks.

2/ aggressive fail soft: return v (what the current code does). This
corresponds to normal fail soft, with the added assumption that we don't
care about the reduction effect (see below point 3/)

3/ conservative fail soft: return v + margin. If the reduced search (qsearch)
gives us a score <= v, we bet that the non reduced search will give us a
score <= v + margin.

* Saying that 2/ is "logical" implies that 1/ and 3/ are not, which is
arguably wrong. Besides, experimental results tell us that 2/ beats 3/,
and that's not something we can argue against: experimental results are
the only trusted metric.

* Also, with the benefit of hindsight, I don't think the fact that 2/ is
better than 3/ is surprising at all. The point is that it is YOUR turn to
move, and you are assuming that by NOT playing (and letting the opponent
capture your hanging pieces in QS) you cannot generally GAIN razor_margin(depth).

No functional change.
Better document null search window

Hopefully this patch makes the code more:

* Self-documenting: Null search is always a zero window search,
  because it is testing for a fail high. It should never be done
  on a full window! The current code only works because we don't
  do it at PV nodes, and therefore (alpha, beta) = (beta-1, beta):
  that's the kind of "clever" trick we should avoid.

* Idiot-proof: If we want to enable null search at PV nodes, all we
  need to do now is comment out the !PvNode condition. It's that simple!

In theory, null search should not be done at PV nodes, because PV nodes
should never fail high. But in practice, they DO fail high, because of
aspiration windows, and search inconsistencies, for example. So it makes
sense to keep that flexibility in the code.

No functional change.