Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 08:33:48 08/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 2004 at 09:52:44, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On August 03, 2004 at 09:09:23, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>On August 03, 2004 at 09:08:14, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >> >>>On August 03, 2004 at 05:53:31, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On August 03, 2004 at 04:21:45, martin fierz wrote: >>>> >>>>>ah, i just read your answer above - sorry for asking a second time... hmm, i'll >>>>>have to try this! >>>>> >>>>>any idea how much better your "correct" MVV/LVA is compared to the value >>>>>comparison? >>>> >>>>It depends on the rest of the program. But it could be quite significant. >>>> >>>>It's one of these things were everybody gets it wrong the first time >>>>because the most logical thing to do is not correct because of the >>>>weird stuff an alphabeta searcher looks at :) >>>> >>>>-- >>>>GCP >>> >>>How is this not standard MVV/LVA? >>> >>>To me this seems exactly equivalent to: >>> >>> >>>value = (victim_value << 10) - attacker_value; >>> >>>or some such, which would also sort things into MVV/LVA order . . . >>> >>>anthony >> >> >>Unless people are doing something stupid like value = victim_value - attacker >>value . . . which would be an easy mistake to make. >> >>anthony > >Maybe it's a good idea to read a thread a bit more before replying. > >-- >GCP I never read Uri's posts. anthony
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.