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 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.