Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 16:53:14 02/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 1999 at 18:42:21, Don Dailey wrote: >>>However, I don't have that many numbers (1024 you said?) as I only used 12*64 >>>since we didn't use any sort of 'boundary squares' in cray blitz. Ditto for >>>Crafty where I also use 12*64. I have been meaning to go grab that table of >>>numbers and 'steal' it for crafty, but I haven't yet, because it is in the >>>syntax of 'fortran'. > >>>>I have a little piece of code I wrote that generates 64 bit random >>>>numbers one at a time and tests each one against all the ones >>>>previously generated. If the new number is closer than my specified >>>>hamming distance, I regenerate that number until it is. To get >>>>even 24 bit distances between any two I've had to generate almost >>>>half a million numbers. I have 1024 numbers in my table. >>>> >>>>I don't believe your random number generator is returning numbers >>>>this good. Maybe you can precompute them this good, I don't know. >>>>I'm trying right now with 32 bits but it's going awfully slow. >>> >>>I use the Numerical Recipes RNG code. But you are right, it won't produce >>>such good hamming distances quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if it takes >>>4 billion numbers to get decent random numbers... > > >Hi Bob, > >I just generated a 1024 entry table with hamming distances at least >32 bits between any two. It took about 134 million random number >calls. <snip> OK, so the $64 question is: will using this table cause any measurable improvement in your program? For example, will your node count drop if you do a fixed depth search on a test suite? cheers, Peter
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.