Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 19:07:58 08/03/04
In a thesis paper on hardware move generation, the author found better success with MVV/MVA than MVV/LVA for normal search (as opposed to quiescent). http://www.macs.ece.mcgill.ca/~mboul/ICGApaper.pdf has this: "The arbiters are also capable of dynamically reversing priorities, thereby permitting two different move ordering schemes: most-valuable-victim / least-valuable-aggressor (MVV/LVA) and most-valuable-victim / most-valuableaggressor (MVV/MVA). This is labeled MVV/XVA. It was observed that MVV/MVA is the better of the two move ordering methods during full-width tree searching (13% fewer nodes, 10 opening-game test positions used). However, in quiescence search, MVV/LVA is the preferred ordering (9% fewer nodes, same test positions). It seems logical that during capture search, it is better to capture with the least-valued pieces first. In full-width searching, the stronger pieces typically cause the most damage and/or board control, explaining the somewhat unorthodox MVV/MVA move ordering." Has anyone else tried this reversal for search/qsearch?
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.