Computer Chess Club Archives

Search

Messages

Subject: Re: MVV/LVA or SEE - liability?

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 07:26:41 11/29/00

Go up one level in this thread

On November 29, 2000 at 08:23:56, Severi Salminen wrote:

>Hi!
>
>Robert Hyatt said that when he tested the performance differences between SEE
>and MVV/LVA he saw a 10% advantage for SEE. Is this 10% really worth it when we
>consider the fact that SEE might miss some tactical shots, like pins and other
>check involving sequenses? This might be also true if we use standing pat
>cutoffs in qsearch, but generally. Has anyone pitted a version of his/her
>program using SEE against MVV/LVA in a long match (more than 100 games at
>least)? What were the results?
>
>Severi



You didn't read far enough.  _IF_ you also use SEE to weed out losing captures
from your q-search, you can get a factor of _two_ speed improvement.  That is,
you will search the tree _over_ twice as fast counting that original 10%
savings.

• Re: MVV/LVA or SEE - liability? Severi Salminen 08:22:38 11/29/00
  • Re: MVV/LVA or SEE - liability? Robert Hyatt 09:45:34 11/29/00
    • Re: MVV/LVA or SEE - liability? Severi Salminen 03:25:29 11/30/00
      • Re: MVV/LVA or SEE - liability? Bruce Moreland 09:56:23 11/30/00
        • Re: MVV/LVA or SEE - liability? Severi Salminen 11:25:32 11/30/00
          • Re: MVV/LVA or SEE - liability? Bruce Moreland 17:20:15 11/30/00
            • Re: MVV/LVA or SEE - liability? Christophe Theron 23:59:35 11/30/00

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.