Re: [computer-go] Re: Sharing Secrets

["Frank de Groot" <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> So you made it sounds like random values are MUCH worse than some custom 
> values, something to be avoided at all cost.
Correct.

> And now you say that some complicated method of picking custom values
> might be equivalent to 1 or 2 extra random bits.
I never said that.
I said that random sucks and that a "complicated method" is "much better".

> For me, this lends strong support to the advise to use true random
> or excellent pseudo random values, since many attempts at creating
> custom values (ignoring all the software engineering headaches)
> will inadvertantly lead to a *worse* collision probability, maximizing
> hamming distance being a good example.
This is an outrageous claim.
You are implying that people like Erik, Arthur and myself have made a 
mistake and have spoilt their hasher by chasing an illusion..

> Why go through all that effort when random values, which are trivial to
> code, are so close to optimal???
Random values are not trivial to code.
People have been promoted on the topic of "good random".
And "good random" is not good enough for our purposes, however good it is. 
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/