Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 11:02:03 02/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2001 at 11:47:15, David Rasmussen wrote: >On February 07, 2001 at 11:31:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>The main issue is hamming distance between any two positions you search. >>If each move changes 10 bits, then after 6 moves, you have potentially >>changed 60. After 12 you _could_ be back to where you started. The place >>to start working is on your random numbers. When I first did mine, I simply >>checked the hamming distance between any two of the numbers and if it was >>unacceptably low (say < 16 bits different) I culled one of them. > >How many different random numbers did you need? > >I guess it will be of the order of 800 64-bit numbers. > >Using a very naive method (which I thought was similar to the one you describe), >I cannot get above a minimum hamming distance of 10 between 800 numbers, within >a reasonable amount of time (5 minutes). > >I just generate one random number. Then I generate the next and check if the >hamming distance between this and the ones already generated (in this case only >one), is above, say, 5. If it is I keep it, if not, I generate a new number and >tests this etc. Sorry, I had a bug. Instead of 10, the number is now 20. I _know_ that a set with distance 28 exists, as I've explained elsewhere, but it is not easy to find randomly. I can't believe guys who say that they had 40 or even more than 28, unless they've done some real hard thinking. You're not gonna find this by random search unless you're extremely lucky with you PRNG.
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.