Author: Larry Griffiths
Date: 13:51:51 02/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 1999 at 15:16:45, Don Dailey wrote:
>Ok, I took a few minutes to look at the problem and it was in
>my hamming distance function. I was counting the number of
>bits in common, so really my distance function was a closeness
>function! So the bug was in my code. It was also the very
>first thing I looked at, since I had a hunch.
>
>I ran your code with my random number generator and it now
>we completely match if I turn off your optimization of taking
>the compliment of good numbers. That optimization is pretty
>effective and makes it find numbers much more quickly.
>
>It looks like 32 bits is pretty tough to achieve, probably
>not even feasible. Any idea how to compute the maximum distance
>possible in a given size table of 64 bit numbers?
>
>- Don
>
>
>
>
>
>On February 25, 1999 at 14:15:01, Don Dailey wrote:
>
>>On February 25, 1999 at 08:23:55, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On February 25, 1999 at 00:40:47, Don Dailey wrote:
>>>
Don,
Here is a version of my code that I used to set half of the bits on
in my piece table. My program ran within 10% timewise using this
code verses random numbers. (The random numbers seemed to work better.)
unsigned long onebit=0x00000001;
for(int w=1;w<=bitwidth;w++)
{
int setoncount=384; // Half the entries in the piecesqtbl
while(setoncount)
{
int p=random(12);
int sq=random(64);
if(!(PieceSquareTable[p][sq]&onebit))
{
PieceSquareTable[p][sq]|=onebit;
setoncount--;
}
}
onebit=onebit<<1;
}
Larry :-)
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.