Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:10:53 11/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2003 at 10:53:22, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On November 13, 2003 at 10:13:34, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On November 13, 2003 at 09:44:22, Daniel Clausen wrote: >> >>>On November 12, 2003 at 18:40:32, Peter Kappler wrote: >>> >>>[snip] >>> >>>>>I get an average of better than 90%. It takes tuning. Work on killers and >>>>>history pays off. Make sure you search bad captures before other moves also. >>>>>Taking capture out of killers gave me a boost also. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Hmmm, I think I do bad captures at the end, and as I recall it was a clear win. >>> >>>IIRC, for most people trying bad captures at the end was better with SEE, but >>>worse with MVV/LVA. >>> >>>Sargon >> >>How do you know that a capture is bad with MVV/LVA? > >When someone uses SEE, a capture is bad when the SEE-value for it is negative. >When someone uses MVV/LVA, a capture is bad when the MVV/LVA-value for it is >negative. > >It's that simple. :) > >Sargon It is not so simple. By this definition every pawn capture by knight,bishop,rook,queen,king is a bad capture. It does not make sense so it does not make sense even to try to put it after non captures. You can have a function to detect part of the captures as bad captures and also use MVV/LVA for the captures that you do not detect as bad. The function that detect bad captures is not SEE because SEE gives you the expected value of the capture and not only the information if the capture is good or bad. SEE can order QxN before QxQ when both are good captures when the special function does not do it. In that case the question if to put bad captures before history moves or not to do it is dependent on the definition of bad capture. 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.