Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 14:39:55 05/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2001 at 17:09:56, Jesper Antonsson wrote: >On May 15, 2001 at 21:00:24, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>On May 15, 2001 at 18:04:28, Jesper Antonsson wrote: >> >>>Nonsense. This is a theory discussion and I don't give a rats ass about >>>"real-world" problems. In chess, when you go above a certain depth, the time >>>taken for the algorithm to complete doesn't increase. In the travelling salesman >>>problem, for example, another city always increase the time taken for the >>>algorithm to complete. That's why chess is O(1) and the TSP is not. >> >>O(f(n)) is used for algorithms, not specific problems. Chess is a specific >>problem, but the algorithms we use to search the chess-tree can be applied to >>other problems, maybe ones where every ply added (to infinity) will increase the >>running time of the algorithm. These algorithms are demonstrably O(exp(n)). >>The statement "Chess is O(1)" has absolutely zero meaning. > >Nonsense. There are chess algorithms, and the rules of chess are a part of those >algorithms. That's not what you said, though. But given those algorithms, specialized for chess, I would like for you to show me one that is O(1). You haven't yet.
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.