Author: Tom Likens
Date: 06:31:28 05/31/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2004 at 23:56:57, Russell Reagan wrote: >On May 30, 2004 at 09:56:39, Tom Likens wrote: > >>And of course, if you want to start playing with the Hamming distance >>it's easy. Of course, there is no real consensus (as far as I can tell) >>on wheter numbers with a larger Hamming distance are better or not- so, >>as always you should experiment and see what works best for movei. > >Can we define what "better" is? Before we can develop a test to determine >whether a larger hamming distance is better, what are we trying to achieve? Are >we trying to spread the positions out more evenly over the hash table? Or is our >objective to have fewer full 64-bit hash key collisions? Or something else? I've >read these "larger hamming distance is better" threads in the past, but I never >really thought about what "better" meant :) Hello Russell, My first take on this, would be to define "better" as fewer collisions. It would be interesting to plot the number of collisions vs. the average/minimum Hamming distance of the random numbers (of course, as Dieter, is likely to point out, calling these numbers "random" after sifting them to produce a certain Hamming distance is a bit of a stretch)! regards, --tom
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.