Author: Tom King
Date: 05:48:01 03/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 1999 at 01:23:38, Peter McKenzie wrote: >On March 13, 1999 at 17:23:24, Tom King wrote: > >>On March 13, 1999 at 07:48:31, Tom King wrote: >> >>>On March 12, 1999 at 02:45:52, Peter McKenzie wrote: >>> >>>>On March 12, 1999 at 02:26:49, JW de Kort wrote: >>>> >>[SNIP] >>>>>e.g suposse we have the following possible captures: PxN, PxR, QxR >>>>> >>>>>using methode 1: PxR, PxN, QxR >>>>>using methode 2: PxR, QxR, PxN >>>>> >>>>>Wich one is MVA/LVA? >>>> >>>>It is method 2. >>>>As a finesse, you can try sorting King captures first (so KxR comes before PxR). >>> >>>Is this good (King captures first)? Doesn't this go against the definition of >>>MVVLVA? > >The idea is that captures by the King always win the piece, because the King >can't move into check. Captures by other pieces may result in the capturing >piece being recaptured. > >This might be complicated by the way you detect King moves into check. > Right. I allow moves which put the king into check(!). They are filtered out at the next ply. >>> >>I just ran some quick tests. For my program following MVVLVA rather than MVVLVA >>(but sorting these king captures first) seems to be about 5% faster. Anyone else >>tried this? > >I tested it ages ago, can't remember how, but putting the King captures first >seemed to help. What tests did you do? I just ran two version my program on a bunch of positions. V1 used MVVLVA and V2 used MVVLVA-with-king-captures first. I found "pure" MVVLVA to be faster about 80% of the time. Sometimes it was only slightly faster, but sometimes it was significant (say 30%).
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.