From 06d6468ce9f660d4e901096780b3282eb5652984 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Marco Costalba Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 07:58:36 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Test with see Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba --- src/movepick.cpp | 13 +++++-------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/movepick.cpp b/src/movepick.cpp index 0017353c..e7ae8c36 100644 --- a/src/movepick.cpp +++ b/src/movepick.cpp @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ Move MovePicker::get_next_move(Lock &lock) { /// MovePicker::pick_move_from_list(). void MovePicker::score_captures() { - // Winning and equal captures in the main search are ordered by MVV/LVA. + // Winning and equal captures in the main search are ordered by MVV. // Suprisingly, this appears to perform slightly better than SEE based // move ordering. The reason is probably that in a position with a winning // capture, capturing a more valuable (but sufficiently defended) piece @@ -216,12 +216,9 @@ void MovePicker::score_captures() { { Move m = moves[i].move; moves[i].score = pos.see(m); - if (moves[i].score >= 0) - { - moves[i].score = HistoryMax; - moves[i].score += move_promotion(m) ? QueenValueMidgame - : pos.midgame_value_of_piece_on(move_to(m)); - } + //if (moves[i].score >= 0) + // moves[i].score = move_promotion(m) ? QueenValueMidgame + // : pos.midgame_value_of_piece_on(move_to(m)); } } @@ -266,7 +263,7 @@ void MovePicker::score_evasions() { void MovePicker::score_qcaptures() { - // Use MVV/LVA ordering + // Use MVV ordering for (int i = 0; i < numOfMoves; i++) { Move m = moves[i].move;