Author: leonid
Date: 15:14:59 12/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 1999 at 18:01:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 21, 1999 at 16:07:45, leonid wrote: > >>Hello! >> >>Since I see here Robert Hyatt, I am too tempted to ask him one question: Do you >>remember how effective could be expected usage of Least Valuable Attacker? >>I am asking this since I failed to use this formula succesfully. MVV work in my >>code well. >> >>Thank you for response! >>Leonid. > > >I never tried one without the other. Hsu and I had a discussion in r.g.c.c >a few years ago, and I added MVV/LVA to crafty so that I could compare the two >accurately. > >All you do is use two loops, the first to find the most valuable piece that >is under attack, the second to find the least valuable piece that is attacking >that piece. The obvious idea is that you would rather try pxr before qxr, as >pxr wins material no matter what, while qxr might lose big material if the rook >is defended. And since mvv/lva doesn't know about 'what is defended' it would >make that mistake.. > >I've used SEE for move ordering since the middle 70's... > >Bob Thanks! Your description goes exactly (in general) in correspondence with what I did few days ago. Was surprised to find that LVA did no advantage for my logic. I dreamed about new speeding this time with no base for this. Sometime it is just like this. Leonid.
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.