Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 15:12:27 12/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 2001 at 17:18:44, Sune Fischer wrote: > >I got the impression he was using it for general debugging. And only that? >It is a somewhat indirect way of testing for collisions, why not use a more >direct approach? > No, it is a very direct approach. The hashtable is just a means to an end. What we want is to save time by saving some results for reuse. What I am checking directly is not collisions the technical hashing theoretic sense, I am checking whether the hashtable returns the right values for reuse. Incidentally, this is the same as finding _some_ collisions, not all, but some. Not none, as this couldn't happen if there wasn't collisions. >Besides, if both Bruce and Robert are using 32 bit keys I believe it is sound >(ie. not producing many collisions). > What a scientific argument :) There's a difference between saying "32-bit pawn hashing 'works'" and "32-bit pawn hashing has no collisions". Maybe the collisions that do happen, doesn't matter. So it 'works'. But there are collisions. I am only saying one thing: There are collisions (nobody has disproved this yet, on the other hand, I have proved it). Do they matter? I would really like to know. /David
This page took 0.01 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.