Author: Angrim
Date: 22:42:21 09/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2003 at 18:22:44, Russell Reagan wrote: >On September 09, 2003 at 17:53:58, Daniel Clausen wrote: > >>Well, fail-hard gives me less headaches. :) I do a search with the window >>[alpha, beta] and I get a result within that range. I like that. :) > >To me this says that you like fail hard because it is simpler (I agree), but I >wonder if it only seems simpler because that's what we are used to. Japanese >looks like a complicated language to me, but I bet it's easy if that's what you >learned first. The first time that I coded alpha-beta, I used fail-soft because it was the obvious way to do it. It was some years later that I discovered that many people were doing it a different way. I don't know that fail-soft provides much of an advantage, but it seems strange to me to throw away data like fail-hard does. Angrim
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.