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.