Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 00:15:36 08/04/04
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." > >Has anyone else tried this reversal for search/qsearch? No. May be it works for capturing hanging, non defended pieces, supported by some piece square table. But QxR instead of PxR where rook is defended by pawn or light piece makes not much sense. Gerd
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.