Author: Tony Werten
Date: 10:08:59 01/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2003 at 11:19:24, Russell Reagan wrote: >On January 30, 2003 at 09:42:01, Andrew Williams wrote: > >>To illustrate why SEE is better than MVV/LVA, suppose you have a position where >>White attacks two of black's minor pieces (worth 300 points each). In each case, >>White has one attacker on the piece. One of these pieces is attacked by a Rook >>and is not defended. The other is attacked by a Pawn but is defended. SEE will >>tell you that the rook capture is better, because it will calculate a material >>gain of 300 points versus a material gain of 200 points. MVV/LVA will tell you >>that the Pawn capture is better, because the score will be (300-1) versus >>(300-5) for the Rook capture. The difference is that if the rook capture would >>give you a beta cutoff and the pawn capture wouldn't, you'll do a lot of >>unnecessary work by searching them in the wrong order > >Thanks for your comments, and I have a question. > >Are both SEE and MVV/LVA only concerned with captures on a single square? I have >always thought of MVV/LVA to be a kind of qsearch. I think some people have >different definitions of what SEE is. For instance, I recall Vincent saying that >you can just call SEE() + Eval() straigth from your search function instead of >calling QSearch(), so he obviously sees it as a whole board thing instead of >something on a single square. I have always thought it was a whole board thing >also, but I have never implemented it. The "whole board thing" is called Super SOMA (SEE=SOMA, iirc) and has been implemented in a Shogi program. Could be worthwhile to spend some time on for a chessprogram. Tony
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.