Author: Uri Blass
Date: 21:09:10 08/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 2004 at 22:07:58, Dann Corbit wrote: >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." Are you sure that capturing with the king cause the most demage in full-width search? I think that it may be better to capture with another piece because capturing with the king can cause king safety problems. 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.