Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 11:53:50 12/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 2001 at 14:33:33, Dan Andersson wrote: >>and while collisions might not themselves be evil, the increase in complexity of >>debugging etc. sure is. A very important invariant, that a position's > >An interesting artifact of shortening the hash is that due to the increased >chance of collisions you will have a better chance of catching the collisions in >action, and make the program deal with them gracefully. i.e. A more debugged >program rather than the opposite ... Counterintuitive but true! By using a >larger hash key you actually move the problem forward intead of cathing it. > >MvH Dan Andersson No because in normal operation, you don't detect collisions. No program that I know of deals with collisions gracefully, other than just ignoring them and not detecting them. They do this either because the programmer has judged that they aren't important, or that they are not happening. I feel safer with them not happening, and they won't with 64-bit pawn hashkeys. Even if they do, I handle that just as graceful as all other programs: I don't even detect it. /David
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.