Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: The problem with big-O is one of definitions

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 16:34:08 05/09/01

Go up one level in this thread


On May 09, 2001 at 19:31:32, Ricardo Gibert wrote:
[snip]
>>If someone pays you to give an algorithm analysis of chess will you really
>>report that it is O(1)?
>
>
>Yes and I will point to the access of Nalimov EGTBs as an example of such an
>algorithm. I will observe that in principle 5-man EGTBs can be extended to
>32-man EGTBS, though this has no practical significance.

This is an incompetent assessment.  32 man EGTB's cannot even conceivably be
attempted if half the universe were turned into computers and the other half
computed madly until the power went out.

This is your definition of O(1).



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.