Author: Alvaro Jose Povoa Cardoso
Date: 04:41:03 09/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2003 at 21:59:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 27, 2003 at 07:46:36, Alvaro Jose Povoa Cardoso wrote: > >> >>I'm a bit confused about the index 'hwhich' computation on the >>'htable->always[hwhich]' >>Could someone please explain the following crafty code? >> hwhich=((int)temp_hashkey>>log_hash)&1; >> >>Why do we need '>>log_hash' >>Couldn't it also be done with: >> hwhich=((int)temp_hashkey)&1; >> >>Thanks in advance, >>Alvaro Cardoso > > >The above change would work. However, when I converted from the old two-table >approached to the current modified one-table approach, I wanted _exact_ node >count matches. This guarantees that by using the same bit that the older >approach used with a 1-bit larger table address... The bit that indexes always[] ends up being the MSB (left most bit) right? Alvaro Cardoso
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.