Author: Antonio Dieguez
Date: 18:09:49 06/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
>>Yes. However I remember what Ernst Heinz said to me once: "fail hard läuft >>einfach besser". Seems not really logical - but I guess, he has a point. Perhaps >>the point is, that it is much easier, to have some subtle bug in fail soft >>search. alpha-beta is not really forgiving here - it will not crash with such >>bugs, just not perform as good as it should (perhaps only in few positions). >> > >Yeah, that's a pretty mysterious statement. I see no reason to ever fail hard. I >don't even see how fail-soft is more bug-prone. one of the changes i did in last versions of my engine was changing from fail-hard to fail-soft, that's partly why i bugfixed it twice (besides incompetence..) because i wasn't carefull when returning a score below alpha. The closer you are from something like, for example: SortMoves(); then loop in a for trough the moves the harder to have a bug, but if you have something more bloated or bad coded you could not even see that in some place you aren't setting the score below alpha or doing it incorrectly. When discarding a move you want to set its score the lower possible too, so you have to do more work. May be is a basic mistake, but that would do for being "more bug-prone". Just my 1 cent. I could be absolutely wrong as always.
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.