Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Chess and O(1)

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 11:09:16 05/09/01

Go up one level in this thread


On May 09, 2001 at 14:05:16, Ricardo Gibert wrote:

>On May 09, 2001 at 14:03:01, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On May 09, 2001 at 13:50:33, Ricardo Gibert wrote:
>>
>>>On May 09, 2001 at 13:47:32, Jeremiah Penery wrote:
>>>
>>>>A lot of people seem to be saying that chess can be solved by an O(1),
>>>>constant-time, algorithm.  Technically, this may be true.  _IF_ you had the
>>>>proper algorithm that was capable of computing chess exactly[1], it could
>>>>exhibit constant-time behavior.  The problems are that no such algorithm exists
>>>>today, and the constant would be so large as to have no relevant meaning in
>>>>today's world - i.e., it would likely be greater than the age of the universe.
>>>>All chess programs are currently using some sort of tree-searching algorithm
>>>>(Alpha-Beta or variant), which are provably O(exp(n)) algorithms.  Time
>>>>increases exponentially with the increase in input depth - depth 5 takes
>>>>exponentially less time than depth 6, which in turn takes exponentially less
>>>>time than depth 7, and so on.  The fact that depth _eventually_ ends _IN CHESS_,
>>>>has nothing to do with the complexity of the algorithm.  Theoretically you can
>>>>give the same algorithm an infinitely sized tree, so that constant-time solution
>>>>is impossible.  For those who say that chess is O(1), it can't be so if the
>>>>program in question is using a tree-search algorithm!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[1] This O(1) chess algorithm would have to solve the game not by computing a
>>>>tree, because tree-search is demonstrably O(exp(n)) for this type of tree.
>>>
>>>That it is a tree is not relevant. The tree is finite. That's enough.
>>
>>So your requirement is that the tree is infinite?
>>
>>As popeye the sailor says:
>>"Uck, uck uck, uck."
>
>A finite constant to be precise.

But you just gave that as a necessary and sufficient condition for O(1).  If it
is not finite, then it *has* to be infinite.  Isn't that the only alternative?

>I've been polite and expect you to do the same.
I'm sorry, I can be something of a jerk at times.




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.