Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Hash Collisions

Author: Rémi Coulom

Date: 03:29:36 02/24/99

Go up one level in this thread

On February 23, 1999 at 11:07:12, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On February 23, 1999 at 05:59:24, Rémi Coulom wrote:
>>I'd like to have the Hamming distance maximizers' opinion about these points.
>First, I don't do _any_ of the above in Crafty at present.  So it is a pretty
>much moot point at present for me.
>second, the ran[n+1]=~ran[n] was just a simple optimization for the test
>program.  And even there it was just a quick way to find 768 random numbers.
>(ie that is quicker to compute than a new random number).  I only wanted to
>see how many different 64 bit values I would have to try to get a hamming
>distance of 24, because Don's number was way smaller than mine.

What I would like to know is the reason why some people think that maximizing
the minimum Hamming distance is good for hash codes. I have not got the ICCA
Journal article that was indicated earlier and I wonder if their author measured
any improvement over random hash keys. I would appreciate very much if someone
who has it could post a summary of the content of this ICCA Journal article.


This page took 0.04 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.