Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 06:32:16 03/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2004 at 09:21:43, Peter Fendrich wrote: >Oh, I see. index is pointing at the highest value. I've tried that too! >I have worked a lot with my history table... yes index=FunctionOf(to,stm,depth); There is no need to check other entries than the one being updated :) >>It's a form of normalizing the table, if you scale you must scale everything >>otherwise only the best entries gets cut down and not the bad ones. > >I really thought that you tried some scrambling technique here! >It's maybe not be as bad as it sounds, the good moves will prove themself very >quickly again. The random part shouldn't be too dominating though. "scrambling", "random"? One small problem with rescaling often is that a lot of entries might zero out completely, that turns into pure random ordering. I think a small improvement here is to seed with pcsq or similar, but use values so small that the real history scores easily takes over. -S.
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.