Author: martin fierz
Date: 06:13:43 02/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 2004 at 07:02:11, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On February 25, 2004 at 05:56:16, martin fierz wrote: > >>it won't pop *my* eyes. i once reduced hash key sizes in my checkers program >>beyond all sensible settings, because there was a discussion here about whether >>you really need 64-bit keys. in my checkers program, i have 64 bit keys, but >>effectively it's only using about 52 bits. i have about a 20 bit part which is >>used for the hashindex with %, and of the remaining 44 bits i store only 32 as a >>check. i reduced those 32 down to about 8 (!!) bits and in 100 test positions >>only saw one different move played IIRC. ridiculous, i must have lots of >>collisions there. unfortunately, i didn't count the collision number, or write >>down the results - but i know what you're talking about! > >Almost the same experiment with my chess engine (inluding many details, like the >effective number of bits used, and going down to 8 bits only): >http://chessprogramming.org/cccsearch/ccc.php?art_id=190318 > >Regards, >Dieter hi dieter, i had forgotten about your post on this, but now i remember it. very similar to my observations, and if only we had written our observations up a bit more seriously we could have written the paper that bob is publishing now ;-) cheers martin
This page took 0.01 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.