Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 15:00:22 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. Excuse me, I am not a expert on this, but I am very curious about a phrase that I have seen in all this discussion. "Chess is O(1)" Is not the notation O() applied to algorithms? Well, chess is not an algorithm, it is game. So, should not we talk about that alpha/beta is O(whatever), Minimax is O(whatever) etc.? I do not want to be picky about this, but everybody is fighting for the definion of O(1) just I want to make sure that everybody understand the definition of chess :-) Sorry if this was answered before, reading all the messages in this thread is O(exp(n)) Regards, Miguel "El ajedrez no es un juego de mierda, es un juego de madera" E. Eliskases "Chess is not a shitty game... it is made of wood" Erich Eliskases
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.