Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 12:04:37 11/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
Hi On November 18, 1999 at 11:40:31, Bas Hamstra wrote: >On November 18, 1999 at 08:35:56, Antonio Dieguez wrote: > >>On November 18, 1999 at 06:41:49, Bas Hamstra wrote: >> >>hi Bas, >> >>>My program uses incremental move generation, in the sense that 1 move at the >>>time is generated. I too think the advantage over staged generators (eg. only >>>captures) is small, if any at all. >> >>and which is the move ordering in your program? >> >>>Bas Hamstra. > >I have one old complete program and 8 incomplete testbeds :) > >The complete program uses this: > >- BM from hash >- Non losing caps sorted MVV and within that LVA (so not quite MVV/LVA) >- 2 Killers >- Non caps unsorted >- Losing caps > >That's it. I see no need for history sorting, nor for SEE sorting. It uses >incremental peudo attack updating, that basically makes you have all >captures at hand at any time. And a cheap SEE. And cheap Check-checking :) I also wondered why people use history heuristics. Given the above move orderung, the only place where you can use history heuristics is "Non caps". And if you use history heuristics, do people sort the whole non-cap list based on the history value or just the first ones? Another thing: I saw "MVV/LVA" mentioned several times in this forum. Can anyone point me to an article or something about this? Kind regards, -sargon
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.