Author: rasjid chan
Date: 03:51:45 06/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
QUOTE- Actually, it's really not that complex. (Unless I am missing something really stupid :)) You don't need any boundary information, the fact that the score is outside of the alpha-beta bounds implies where you are in relation to the boundaries. The difference between fail-soft and fail-hard is something like 4 or 5 lines of code. You're just not restricting your return values to alpha-beta. UNQUOTE. Some time back, you gave me some tips on fail soft and after that I seemed to know how to do it correctly and I have the idea that what I got is "correct". I have to really think on your "4 or 5 lines of codes" and if it is true that that is also possible and yet as complete as what I feel I get with my implementation, I would be surprised. Never mind about explaining the details, I'll see if I am doing something silly, then I may post for help. Maybe others may just give a short comment if actually fail-soft may be done with some clever short codes and yet enough. About what I monitored, I just count the number of fail-low and average the deviation from alpha. It is about 1 pawn for the whole game. Of course I implement fail-soft just knowing it is better, but not knowing how important. Just like in the thread about why is fruit strong,as you mentioned, an overall balance and proper priorities. Best Regards Rasjid
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.