Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Dumb hashing question

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 20:03:56 12/09/99

Go up one level in this thread


On December 09, 1999 at 18:18:42, blass uri wrote:

>On December 09, 1999 at 17:41:00, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>
><snipped>
>>We now have two issues.  Assuming you use a 64 bit hash signature, what is the
>>probability that two different chess positions produce the same 64 bit hash
>>signature?  That would cause serious problems, because we store search results
>>and identify these results by the 64 bit signature, not the full position
>>description.  If two different positions have the same signature, we would use
>>search results in the wrong places..  very bad.  But this is _very_ rare.
>
>When the hardware gets faster it will not be very rare and the question is if
>crafty can lose at long time control with good hardware because of it.
>Can better hardware be counter productive?
>
>Is it possible that crafty with hardware 1,000,000 times faster is going to do
>stupid mistakes and lose because of it.
>
>I know that crafty did good results against Rebel in chess2010 but crafty used
>only 1 processor in this games.
>
>Is it possible that in this time control(and in a few years in tournament time
>control) more processors are counter productive?
>
>Uri


It is an issue.  I ran lots of tests for 4 billion nodes each a couple of
years ago.  4 billion nodes isn't reachable by today's hardware, excepting
DB of course.  Even at 1M nodes per second, which is just a bit over my quad
xeon 400 speed, that takes 4,000 seconds to hit.  On a big alpha, I can hit
well over 16M nodes per second, which drops that further, but nowhere near what
we could expect in 40/2hr time controls.

1 unnoticed error per billion nodes was the value I got when I ran the test.
The next question is what is the probability that one error in 1 billion nodes
will affect the root move/score?

I personally don't think this will be a problem for many many years...  But I
wouldn't want to be depending on less that 64 bits.  32 was proven to be
useless. 48 is now dangerous.



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.