X-Git-Url: https://git.sesse.net/?p=stockfish;a=blobdiff_plain;f=src%2Fmovepick.cpp;h=187a3c513e0275a112c377919a40d62cbdebf586;hp=c71572e7cf86bead8aa853dd16db512ab329e55d;hb=a28c17ecb60918bae546ea6aa5b596b7a56d603e;hpb=d087b0a34a6aaa0fc31d2fa256b02861d0351256

diff --git a/src/movepick.cpp b/src/movepick.cpp
index c71572e7..187a3c51 100644
--- a/src/movepick.cpp
+++ b/src/movepick.cpp
@@ -206,22 +206,27 @@ void MovePicker::score_captures() {
   // 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
-  // first usually doesn't hurt. The opponent will have to recapture, and
+  // first usually doesn't hurt.  The opponent will have to recapture, and
   // the hanging piece will still be hanging (except in the unusual cases
   // where it is possible to recapture with the hanging piece). Exchanging
   // big pieces before capturing a hanging piece probably helps to reduce
-  // the subtree size. Instead of calculating SEE here to filter out 
-  // loosing captures, we delay the filtering in pick_move_from_list()
+  // the subtree size.
   Move m;
+  int seeValue;
 
   for (int i = 0; i < numOfMoves; i++)
   {
       m = moves[i].move;
-      if (move_promotion(m))
-          moves[i].score = QueenValueMidgame;
-      else
-          moves[i].score = int(pos.midgame_value_of_piece_on(move_to(m)))
-                          -int(pos.type_of_piece_on(move_from(m)));
+      seeValue = pos.see(m);
+      if (seeValue >= 0)
+      {
+          if (move_promotion(m))
+              moves[i].score = QueenValueMidgame;
+          else
+              moves[i].score = int(pos.midgame_value_of_piece_on(move_to(m)))
+                              -int(pos.type_of_piece_on(move_from(m)));
+      } else
+          moves[i].score = seeValue;
   }
 }
 
@@ -320,21 +325,26 @@ Move MovePicker::pick_move_from_list() {
 
       while (movesPicked < numOfMoves)
       {
-          bestIndex = find_best_index();
-
-          if (bestIndex != -1) // Found a possibly good capture
+          int bestScore = -10000000;
+          bestIndex = -1;
+          for (int i = movesPicked; i < numOfMoves; i++)
           {
-              move = moves[bestIndex].move;
-              int seeValue = pos.see(move);
-              if (seeValue < 0)
+              if (moves[i].score < 0)
               {
                   // Losing capture, move it to the badCaptures[] array
                   assert(numOfBadCaptures < 63);
-                  moves[bestIndex].score = seeValue;
-                  badCaptures[numOfBadCaptures++] = moves[bestIndex];
-                  moves[bestIndex] = moves[--numOfMoves];
-                  continue;
+                  badCaptures[numOfBadCaptures++] = moves[i];
+                  moves[i--] = moves[--numOfMoves];
+              }
+              else if (moves[i].score > bestScore)
+              {
+                  bestIndex = i;
+                  bestScore = moves[i].score;
               }
+          }
+          if (bestIndex != -1) // Found a good capture
+          {
+              move = moves[bestIndex].move;
               moves[bestIndex] = moves[movesPicked++];
               if (   move != ttMove
                   && move != mateKiller