Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 10:00:35 08/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 14, 2000 at 04:20:18, Colin Frayn wrote: >On August 13, 2000 at 14:54:29, Heiner Marxen wrote: > >>>Have you seen how I do hash tables? >>> >>>*grin* >> >>I'm not sure, what the *grin* indicates, agreement or disagreement. >>Could you clarify? Do you hash exact positions? (unlike everyone else, >>except perhaps me?) > >Yep. Well, I use two separate hash keys, both with an extremely low collision >rate, making the combination extremely reliable. I see. Now, there is still no guarantee for not erring. I understand that you neglect the possibility of error, here. With full 64 bits of a good hash this appears to be quite reasonable. OTOH, every "mate-in-xy" statement from the program is to be taken with a (small) grain of salt... but that is true for most (all?) of the other programs. >>Now, that starts to get quite interesting for the author of a mate solver. >>Would you care to share some details? > >Heh ;) Well I read your next message so have a browse through the code and see >if there's anything of use in there. > >Feel free to email me if you have any questions/suggestions. Sure, thanks. Currently I am very busy working on a non-chess topic (busy beavers), so it will take some time before I come back to work on Chest (sorry Dann) or other chess related stuff. But I promise I will have a closer look to your mate (and check) detection code. May be I can make some suggestions. You said your mate detection code is only a small fraction of the overall time, so speeding up this code will not have any noticable effect, anyhow. (Provided it really is only a small fraction ;-) >Cheers, >Col Cheers until later, Heiner
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.