Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 17:20:15 11/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 2000 at 14:25:32, Severi Salminen wrote: > >>>Well, I'm not performing any illegal captures (which leaves king in check) - so >>>if a piece or a pawn is pinned to (?) king it can't maybe capture and SEE >>>doesn't see that. I ment no other pins. But maybe king pinning situations are >>>_very_ rare that one doesn't have to consider them. >>> >>>Severi >> >>If you have code that lets you try it both ways, there is one way to find out. >>My intuition is that even if it's not particularly rare, it isn't critical to >>avoid a few mistakes at the tips. > >I don't have either MVV/LVA nor SEE. I just wanted to know if there are _any_ >reasons to pick MVV/LVA instead of SEE (other than simplycity). But apparently I >must go for SEE, sounds like a few days of programming :( > >Severi MVV/LVA is a very quick and very dirty SEE. SEE gives you a better resolution of the swapping sequence. I think it would be insane to use MVV/LVA to prune out losing captures, because you don't detect them. You can get away with using a SEE to do it. I can't think of any reason not to use SEE at least to get better move ordering, other than that a SEE is computationally expensive. This means that whether it's better or not is implementation dependent. I think that most implementations would get a higher node rate with MVV/LVA, but they'd search more deeply with a SEE, at least if losing captures are pruned out. bruce
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.