Yes, that's correct, but if you get similar visualization for similar hashes, then you've got a much larger target to hit in your search space if you're trying to produce a value whose hash has a visualization that's close enough to pass manual inspection, which would circumvent the purpose of this hash visualization.
> if you get similar visualization for similar hashes
True if you did, but I don't think that's the case. Even a single bit difference would send the bishop in a different direction and therefore cause a major difference in the count of squares visited.
I did a quick test to verify this on OP's site. Just incrementing a sample hash by 1 does substantially change the visual.
It's possible two completely different hashes show similar visuals, but I don't think two similar hashes normally do. Hence no reason to re-hash.
