Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:55:31 08/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 2004 at 11:33:48, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >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 The problem is not connected with my posts and I did not suggest doing victim_value-attacker_value. You could save also the last reply in case that you read the thread before posting. http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?380480 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.