Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 12:11:55 12/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 2001 at 14:53:50, David Rasmussen wrote: >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. How would you detect them anyway? All the information you have on the position that generated the old key is _in_ the key already. >/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.