Author: Jesper Antonsson
Date: 14:19:43 05/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2001 at 04:26:27, David Rasmussen wrote: >In the same sense, even if chess is finite (which it is), it is still not O(1) >to solve it, because you will have to look at what happens when the dataset >grows. In this case, what happens when e.g. the chessboard grows? With any known >algorithm, the complexity grows as O(a^n). If anyone have an algorithm that is >in a complexity class lower than this, I would really like to know. The chessboard doesn't grow. The current rules of chess is a part of the algoritm and the *only* input to it is the target depth. Therefore, a "good" chess algorithm is by definition O(1), as the time T(n)<C when n->inf, C constant. >Tablebases are not a solution, since it takes exponential time to generate >them. Not correct, theoretically it takes constant time to generate them, (because when we have done the 32 man TBs, we are done) so they are a "solution".
This page took 0.04 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.