Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 15:06:56 07/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 11, 2003 at 17:50:21, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On July 11, 2003 at 17:23:10, Tom Likens wrote: > >[snip] > >>I probably haven't solved your problem but of course these things >>are insidious. Also I could easily be misinterpreting some of >>your code, if so I apologize. >> >>Some general advice, you probably should convert to 64-bit hash >>keys to reduce the chance of collisions. > > >Actually, every program should allow this to be configurable. For instance, an >8-bit hash can be useful in debugging and a 32-bit hash is something interesting >and not known for certain to be a bad idea. Just want to add that a 256-bit hash key can be useful for debugging too. By contrasting 64-bit with 256-bit, one might conclude that the quality of the random numbers is wanting. > > >> >>If you don't already have it I would write a routine that generates >>the hash key for the current position from scratch. It should always >>match your current dynamic hash key. If you make it a debug >>option, enabled either when you compile or at the command line, >>then you will be able to utilize it in the future when other >>nasty hashing bugs make their appearance. >> >>good luck, >>--tom
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.