Author: martin fierz
Date: 03:04:52 08/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 2004 at 05:44:57, Tony Werten wrote: >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: > >How serious do you want to take a paper that uses a chessprogram that plays best >if killer move, transpositiontables, check extensions and positional evaluation >are disabled ? > >Tony to be fair, that project was about writing an FPGA-based move generator. obviously, they only had a toy program to play with, because they concentrated on that hardware part. so i guess if you want to take anything in that paper seriously, it would be that move-generator part, and you should forget about the rest. cheers martin > >> >>"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.