Author: Carmelo Calzerano
Date: 05:53:41 02/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2001 at 20:34:32, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On February 01, 2001 at 12:54:53, José Carlos wrote: > [snip] >> I'm sorry to get into your argument, but I think you're missing that, >>what he means is "what to use as an index for the table where you store >>the positions. >>If I'm not wrong, he wants to _store_ the whole position but use zobrist to >>calculate _indexes_ to those stored positions. That's exactly what I meant: use zobrist (or something similar) _just_ for indexing, not as hash signature >>And that makes perfect sense to me, because if you use the n-less >>significant bits of the signature (as we do in chess) you're gonna get >>the same index for a buch of very similar positions. Exactly >Yes a very quick way to store is 32 bits zobrist hashing and >a true store of the position! Looks like finally we agree :-) >Another and quicker way is to XOR the 63 bits of the true storage >internal with each other, though i'm sure that zobrist gives >a better division over the hashtable as that... I agree; this way index distribution would be far worse than using zobrist (although still much better than simply masking bits) >But one can invent another zillion ways of indexing them :) Of course. But if you find any better way please let me know... :-) Bye, Carmelo
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.