There exists a lot of debate as to:
when does any particular test 'empirically' prove something...?
(especially chess testing at ultra fast TC).

I realize that you believe SF is doing well, and that you have had success with your testing methods,
but maybe you should reconsider them...SF seems to ...

Would you rather have SF (in "accept" mode) report the value as merely < 0.21 (or < 0.22 - 1.0/PawnValueMidgame), and otherwise behave as Bob suggests?
When this pathological FH-FL condition occurs, there is no correct way to resolve the score in the current iteration. The cake is a lie.

Thanks, so perhaps this is a problem that can be solved with the Stylish plugin? It's one I have yet to reinstall, but if this is the case then I'll provide a fix.

I can't confirm or deny that. I never installed "Stylish", and I can no longer reproduce the problem. But I absolutely did see the ...

I forgot to comment on this (and was too slow to avoid a triple-post).
The point is that a5 was found with a real score of -0.22 at the end of iteration 19 instead of the move being abandoned.
I always cringe when I see the phrase "real score". This time, I have a specific objection:
Here "my" SF ...

Now, I tried clearing the hash and trying Restart Iteration, and got that analysis again, so it seems the hash wasn't cleared or something.

Stockfish does clear its main hash in response to this button-type UCI option (although it does not do so in response to the ucinewgame command). I think it ...

Disclaimer: I have no useful post-1995 web design knowledge.
I upgraded the box I'm using from FF 3.6.x to FF 4.0 and saw the same misbehavior. I thought the second item here might be relevant, even if it mentions different elements. But once I'd installed Firebug and restarted FF to inspect the ...

"Abaddon" is a clone of Carnivor by Michael Sherwin. The "author", "Rajesh Rai", is a known cheater. Actually he was spotted even before the tournament started, and all other participants got a notification. It was rather fun to have the cheater babbling on the chat, with everyone else knowing who ...

That is not quite right, however.

For an example:

move one: score = 0.0

move two: score >= 0.5 (or whatever aspiration beta value is).

move two: score returned after relaxed alpha = 0.1 (when we had proven it >= 0.4 already)

move three: score = 0.2 and this is now the best move. Yet move two ...

So it restarts the entire iteration, just so it's forced to resolve the move to an exact score? That sounds bad to me, but I wouldn't mind being proven wrong. It's more fun to try to help than to criticize. :)
So here's a first try . It adds the UCI option "FHFL Behavior" which can be Reject Fail ...

What about the case of a move requiring both a file and rank specifier? (I imagine that would be hard to find in a real game.)