Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 17:00:09 05/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2001 at 19:34:08, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. Dan, it seems to me that Ricardo is presenting a logical argument here. I don't think the argument is refuted by you calling it incompetent! Similarly, I don't see why the practical difficulties of constructing 32 man EGTBs should detract from their theoretical existance. > >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.