Author: Dan Andersson
Date: 11:55:06 05/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
The function you use to trigger the SE test need not be only static in nature. One or more components of the function could be predicated by previous behaviour. For example: Adding a density function taking into account a increased or decreased probability of singular moves for the part of the tree you are searching presently, maybe hashed information. Multiplying the static factors by a function based on how previous predictions went. And adding a factor based on time to avoid overtraining. Any such dynamic scheme is almost as fast as a purely static function (even if it would be a higher order function) and I would be surprised if it did not significantly outperform the static function search, YMMV. I use such a scheme to enable a pn-search based pruning currently. You could also make a profiler to measure what factors contribute positively and negatively to correct prediction. The possibilities for automation are big. Regards Dan Andersson
This page took 0.01 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.