Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 14:04:35 01/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 1998 at 16:10:46, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >My thought on this is that in the linear case, if you have several >positions hashing to the same slot, then the chain will fill up and >there will be more collisions preventing replacements and storage of >incoming positions. The rand() will perturb the algorithm differently >each time preventing collisions from filling up these hash slot >sequences. So that's why I+rand() is more apt to be empty than I+K. I think it is exactly the same either way, the difference is the illusion of "solidness" provided by seeing three elements at sequential indexes, as opposed to seeing three elements scattered around the table, but equally as likely to be hit by something else. If there is a paradox here that I don't understand, someone please let me know. 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.