Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 00:04:07 09/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
That's actually what I was going to do if nobody else was doing this. And it looks like nobody else is... -Tom On September 16, 1999 at 12:34:05, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On September 16, 1999 at 04:00:43, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>If you have a program with 64 bit hash keys, is it a good idea to devote n bits >>to pawns and the rest to pieces and side-to-move? >> >>I was thinking a good balance may be 24 bits for pawns, but I have no data to >>back this up. Does anybody else? > >I think it is a very interesting idea. If you want to research it to see how >interesting, here is what I suggest: > >Modify your current program so that it detects hash collisions accurately and >run it overnight on something like ECM, counting hash collisions and pawn hash >collisions. > >Do your new pawn hash thing and run the same overnight test, counting hash >collisions and pawn hash collisions. > >If the numbers are similar, write the whole thing up and send it to the ICCAJ. > >You get published, which you can put on your resume, and we get a new technique >and a practical article in the ICCAJ. > >bruce
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.