Author: Rémi Coulom
Date: 03:29:36 02/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 23, 1999 at 11:07:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 23, 1999 at 05:59:24, Rémi Coulom wrote: > [...] >>I'd like to have the Hamming distance maximizers' opinion about these points. >> >>Remi > > >First, I don't do _any_ of the above in Crafty at present. So it is a pretty >much moot point at present for me. > >second, the ran[n+1]=~ran[n] was just a simple optimization for the test >program. And even there it was just a quick way to find 768 random numbers. >(ie that is quicker to compute than a new random number). I only wanted to >see how many different 64 bit values I would have to try to get a hamming >distance of 24, because Don's number was way smaller than mine. What I would like to know is the reason why some people think that maximizing the minimum Hamming distance is good for hash codes. I have not got the ICCA Journal article that was indicated earlier and I wonder if their author measured any improvement over random hash keys. I would appreciate very much if someone who has it could post a summary of the content of this ICCA Journal article. Thanks. Remi
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.