Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 20:55:02 08/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
>I've always done this. The problem is that on some occasions, the null- >move search can cause a "false-fail-high". The re-search produces a score >that was worse than the old search, or, more commonly, actually fails low. >I reject such fail highs if the re-search is worse than the old best (I >catch this by searching with (old-best, +infinity), so that if I fail low, >I know it is worse than the old best move and it gets rejected outright. >I've had versions where this was "broken" for various reasons, and they >always produced an occasional bizarre-looking move that could be an outright >blunder, or just a slightly weaker move... Hi Bob, Glad to hear a "false-fail-high" is common practise -:) Like to add that I often have noticed such a "false-fail-high" is rewarded in the next iteration after all. It has puzzled me for years. A few years ago I made a test-version that always took a "fail-high" as best move, false or not. Results were not better but also not worse. Similar experiences? - Ed -
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.