Author: martin fierz
Date: 01:20:00 08/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 02, 2004 at 16:22:14, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On August 02, 2004 at 16:12:46, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 02, 2004 at 16:04:14, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On August 02, 2004 at 16:01:14, Cesar Contreras wrote: >>> >>>>Hi >>>> >>>>I'm getting better result's (about 8% margin) ordering capture moves based only >>>>on victim value (ignoring attacker value), i think i'm doing something grong. >>>> >>>>My question is: it's significatly better MVV\LVA over MVV >>>> >>>>I know both are aproximations, but witch one it's statically better. >>>> >>>>Thanks in advance. >>> >>>Did you use attacker values instead of attacker *indexes*? >>> >>>It's a common mistake and I can't think of anything else that would cause what >>>you're seeing. >>> >>>-- >>>GCP >> >>I am afraid that I have no attacker indexes in my code so I do not understand >>what you are talking about. >> >>I have piece list but it is only an array like bishops[10][2] that gives me the >>squares of the bishops in the board(no more than 10 bishops per side). > > MVV/LVA value MVV/LVA index >Pawn 100 1 >Bishop 300 2 >Knight 300 2 >Rook 500 3 >Queen 900 4 > >Sortvalue = Victimvalue - Attackerindex > >-- >GCP i don't understand this - are the victimvalues 1 for a pawn or 100? and anyway, why does this attackerindex thing work better than using attackervalues? i used to use MVV/LVA with values in my program before switching to a SEE and it seemed to work quite well (or my SEE is crap, that is another possibility...) cheers martin
This page took 0.01 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.