Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 01:38:36 09/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 1999 at 16:09:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 16, 1999 at 12:07:27, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>What if it was 32 and 32 then? >> >>And remember, with this setup, it's not like the "main" hash key is any shorter. >>It's just divided into two parts. >> >>-Tom > >It is worth trying, but do it on a fast machine so the trees are big. My >concern is that your hashing becomes 32 bits wide effectively, in positions >like fine 70 or any king and pawn ending. That seems to be asking for trouble, >but that is just a gut feeling without any testing of any sort... This paragraph is totally the reason Tom should research this and publish it. The experiments necessary to investigate this aren't very hard, and he could end up producing and interesting and possibly surprising result. This seems to be a case where your gut feeling could be absolutely wrong. Everyone is afraid of hash collisions but their frequency and the degree of the damage they do haven't been studied much. I can't recall seeing a good article on the subject. Even a paper that provided experimental evidence about the number of collisions per node searched, given hash keys of particular width could be useful, and he could write the code for that in an afternoon. 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.