Author: Sven Reichard
Date: 11:35:57 12/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
Just to clarify one thing: I didn't want to say that checking Hamming distances doesn't work. I was just saying that I don't see any reason *why* it should work, and that the idea seems counterintuitive to me. If it works in practice, fine. The exposition above neglects a couple of things important for chess (like that there can't be two pieces on the same square). This can make a lot of difference in the analysis. My suggestion for finding good hash codes: - Generate a set of hashcode sets by random; - Let each of them analyze a large set of games at a reasonable fixed depth (e.g., d = 10); - See which set visits the fewest nodes. Of course this is quite time consuming. Oh, and while you're at it: Include a set constructed by the Hamming criterion. Please report any significant differences :) As for the theoretical analysis, I'll check the literature as to how good a set we can hope to construct, i.e., the largest n such that there is a set of 768 vectors in F2^64 no n of which are linearly dependent. (I have a couple of references that might help.) Bis die Tage, Sven.
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.