Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 20:21:53 09/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 08, 2003 at 20:30:33, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On September 08, 2003 at 06:51:55, scott farrell wrote: > >>It [fail soft alpha-beta] really only helps with the hashtable with regards to >transpositions. > >It can also help in the case of a fail high in zero window search, when the >original window is not a zero window. With fail hard, you will always get back >alpha+1, and you will need to research. With fail soft, you can get back a value >>= (original - not zero window) beta, and in that case, you can save the >research. > >It can also help aspiration search. In fail hard with a fail high, you will >always get back beta. For an engine, that gradually adjustes beta (say oldbeta + >1 pawn first), it may save one (or more) adjustment cycle(s). Fail soft might >return beta+5 pawns, making the gradual adjustment to oldbeta+1 futile. These all sound like good reasons to use fail soft. What are the drawbacks to fail soft, and the reasons to use fail hard?
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.