With 8 hashes per position, the chance of two different boards
producing a different set of hashes but
the same canonical hash is greater than 1/2^64, because there will be
a bias in the choice of canonical
hashes - toward numerically lower numbers, for instance.
I think.
Arthur
On Dec
On Dec 20, 2007 10:15 AM, Arthur Cater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With 8 hashes per position, the chance of two different boards
producing a different set of hashes but
the same canonical hash is greater than 1/2^64, because there will be
a bias in the choice of canonical
hashes - toward
On Dec 20, 2007 10:19 AM, Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 10:15 AM, Arthur Cater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With 8 hashes per position, the chance of two different boards
producing a different set of hashes but
the same canonical hash is greater than 1/2^64, because
That was my first thought too
- actually my 2nd, my 1st was (8*8/2)/(2^64) -
but I reason, one particular choice of position A's 8 must match one particular
choice of
position B's,
rather than any one of A's matching the particular one of B's.
But since the choosing is biased, the chance of
With 8 hashes per position, the chance of two different boards
producing a different set of hashes but
the same canonical hash is greater than 1/2^64, because there will be
a bias in the choice of canonical
hashes - toward numerically lower numbers, for instance.
I think.
More
I think that would be worse. There are lots of sets of 8 numbers that sum the
same,
far more than there are sets of 8 with the same minimum element.
Arthur
- Original Message -
From: Álvaro Begué [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:08 pm
Subject: Re: [computer-go]
As Gunnar pointed out, you may not need the canonical hash at all. I
think you only need to compute the canonical hash if you are matching
to some game-external hash, such as a fuseki or pattern library. If
you are just using it for transposition and super-ko checking, no
board rotation will
On Dec 20, 2007 11:23 AM, Arthur W Cater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that would be worse. There are lots of sets of 8 numbers that sum
the same,
far more than there are sets of 8 with the same minimum element.
Arthur
- Original Message -
From: Álvaro Begué [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Dec 5, 2007 4:44 AM, Lars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have some questions concernig this paper of Remi:
http://remi.coulom.free.fr/Amsterdam2007/MMGoPatterns.pdf
@Remi: How many iterations you had used?
Anyone of you have similar or other experiences with the algorithm?
I seem to have
Álvaro Begué wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 10:19 AM, Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 10:15 AM, Arthur Cater [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With 8 hashes per position, the chance of two different boards
The only way this might help is in the opening or in very nearly
symmetrical positions and this is really rare. The possible slight
benefit would be canceled by even a very small slowdown.
It would be useful on small boards as an opening book however where
exact positions (or hashes) are
Don Dailey wrote:
You can use Zobrist hashing for maintaining all 8 keys incrementally,
but you probably need a fairly good reason to do so. Incrementally
updating of 1 key is almost free, but 8 might be noticeable if you are
doing it inside a tree search or play-outs.
Yes. Don is
Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
You can use Zobrist hashing for maintaining all 8 keys incrementally,
but you probably need a fairly good reason to do so. Incrementally
updating of 1 key is almost free, but 8 might be noticeable if you are
doing it inside a tree search or
I stand corrected.
Arthur
- Original Message -
From: Álvaro Begué [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:37 pm
Subject: Re: [computer-go] rotate board
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
On Dec 20, 2007 11:23 AM, Arthur W Cater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
Taking the min of the 8 rotated and reflected values is safe enough.
Yes, the probability density will be eight times higher at the low
end, so you're left with 61 bits and change worth of collision
protection instead of 64. If that's not enough, then you can use a
bigger hash size, as has been
I wrote:
If (but not only if) ((a XOR c) AND (b XOR d)) == 0 then a collision
is guaranteed. The probability of this is closer to 2^-32 than to
2^-64.
Before anybody else feels the need to correct me here -- to be more
precise, the probability of collision is at least
Pseudo random number and hashing. Two ways to get into trouble quickly.
The idea of combining all 8 transformations is appealing on modern
processors because you can eliminate all conditional branching.But
maybe this is not practical after all.
If speed is not a concern, you could simple
CGOS 19 is has been stuck for a while now.
At the bottom of the page, it says Many Faces is in a game, but does
not show it as currently playing at the top of the page. Perhaps the
problem is related to a bot leaving near the time a round is
ending/beginning.
I guess Oliver isn't running the
The watchdog script works great! It has restarted the server several
times over the past month.
However, right now 9x9 is down due to some frequent reboots of the
boardspace server that is being looked into. I still manually run
the watchdog script so it will not recover the server after
I was trying to come up with my own algorithm to maximize likelihood and I
am having a hard time getting it all in my mind. I managed to write a
working algorithm for the case of logistic regression, but it was kind of
brittle and I didn't know how to extend it to the softmax case, which is
what I
On Dec 20, 2007 11:43 AM, Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I seem to have more time to think than to code lately. I believe I've
derived an alternate update method.
Thinking more, I realize I messed up a three things...
For one, Newton-Raphson requires
new gamma - gamma = -*L/**L
On Dec 20, 2007 5:39 PM, Álvaro Begué [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was trying to come up with my own algorithm to maximize likelihood and I
am having a hard time getting it all in my mind. I managed to write a
working algorithm for the case of logistic regression, but it was kind of
brittle and
On Dec 20, 2007 10:36 PM, Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 5:39 PM, Álvaro Begué [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Over lunch I thought of another way of doing it that would be very
general and easy to implement. Basically, I can compute the log-likelihood
for a particular
23 matches
Mail list logo
