Author: Don Dailey
Date: 09:31:37 12/31/97
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 1997 at 18:39:08, John Scalo wrote:
>On December 30, 1997 at 14:53:03, Don Dailey wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi again,
>
>>
>
>>After re-reading your post I think I see a problem with the move
>
>>ordering you use for captures:
>
>>
>
>> <small takes big>/<equal exchange>/<big takes small>
>
>>
>
>>Try this:
>
>>
>
>> Always sort the biggest victim first and then in the order of
>
>> smaller attacker.
>
>>
>
>>This may seem counter-intuitive but it's proven to be quite good.
>
>>
>
>>So QxR should get looked at even before PxB even though PxB is an
>
>>upcapture. Even though upcaptures seem to be sure winners keep
>
>>in mind that in a quies search lots of really silly positions
>
>>arise. More often than not the rook in my example is completely
>
>>undefended (often it just moved to some square or was involved
>
>>in a capture itself and is undefended.) So you would rather
>
>>capture a rook than a bishop wouldn't you? In the cases where
>
>>the rook is defended the capture search will terminate very
>
>>quickly anyway since the capture of the queen will be the very
>
>>first move tried on the next level.
>
>>
>
>>-- Don
>
>
>
>I've always seen MVV/LVA and assumed it was pretty much the same as what
>I was doing, but now that you've explained it I realize it's definitely
>*not* what I'm doing :-) To be clear, an example ordering with MVV/LVA
>might be:
>
>
>
>PxR
>
>RxR
>
>QxR
>
>QxB
>
>PxP
>
>
>
>correct??
>
Yes, that is the idea. If you can do it quickly it might also be
slightly beneficial to look at recaptures first but only when it does
not violate these rules.
ie. If the last move was Re6 and now there are 2 rook captures then:
... Re6
PxR(e6)
RxR(e6)
RxR(d8)
QxR
QxB
PxP
-- Don
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.