Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:51:13 09/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 21, 2002 at 12:20:24, scott farrell wrote: >I was just fiddling with my move ordering (as we all do from time to time). > >I found that my MVVLVA code worsened (is that a word?) my move ordering, and >slow my searches significantly. > >I altered it to just simply ordering the capture by the size of the material it >is to take, disregarding the size of the piece to perform the capture. > >As far as I know current wisdom for move ordering is something like this: >1. from hastable first >2. killers next >3. winning captures ordered by MVVLVA >4. other moves >5. losing captures > >My updated move ordering is: >1. from hastable first >2. killers next >3. all captures, ordered by the size of the captured piece (largest first), and >ties broken by size of attacker only I did not look at your code but I think that 3 is exactly eqvivalent to MVVLVA. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.