Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 03:08:46 11/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2001 at 05:23:08, Dan Newman wrote: >I think several of us here have done the experiment. ISTR that Bob did >this some time ago (perhaps with Cray Blitz) and I vaguely recall that >Vincent (or was it Ed?) also has measured the (high) error rate that you >get with too few bits. I'm sure others have, too. > >When I measured it several years back I got about one collision (error) >per second with a 32-bit hash code. (I can't remember the probe rate, >but it was probably about 100k/s at the time.) > >Anyway, 32 bits seems too small, but I don't really know if the errors >would have any measurable effect on engine strength. I've always just >assumed that any such error is a bad thing, and 64 bits virtually >eliminates them... This is _exactly_ my point. Bob and others, and now you, have been claiming for a long time that 32 bits is not enough because they see a lot of collisions with it. Why would this necessarily mean 32 bits hashing is not enough? -- GCP
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.