Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Jeremiah Penery

Date: 19:07:12 05/09/01

Go up one level in this thread


On May 09, 2001 at 19:31:32, Ricardo Gibert wrote:

>On May 09, 2001 at 19:27:07, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>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.

If you have already solved a problem and store the solution, simply accessing
that solution is not an algorithm for solving the problem.  For EGTBs, you must
look at how long they took to compute and how much space they take as N (number
of pieces, in this case) increases.



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.