Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 11:01:36 06/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2005 at 06:51:45, rasjid chan wrote: > >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. > Probably you also did it correctly - there should be several solutions. >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. > Aha. So you combined the results from searches of all depths. If you separate your searches by depth, you will find that low-depth searches tend to return softer values, while high-depth searches tend to find a way to return values closer to the bounds. For a number of reasons, search has a certain natural laziness :) Vas >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 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.