Author: Jesper Antonsson
Date: 13:32:01 05/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2001 at 17:39:55, David Rasmussen wrote: >On May 16, 2001 at 17:09:56, Jesper Antonsson wrote: > >>On May 15, 2001 at 21:00:24, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>On May 15, 2001 at 18:04:28, Jesper Antonsson wrote: >>> >>>>Nonsense. This is a theory discussion and I don't give a rats ass about >>>>"real-world" problems. In chess, when you go above a certain depth, the time >>>>taken for the algorithm to complete doesn't increase. In the travelling salesman >>>>problem, for example, another city always increase the time taken for the >>>>algorithm to complete. That's why chess is O(1) and the TSP is not. >>> >>>O(f(n)) is used for algorithms, not specific problems. Chess is a specific >>>problem, but the algorithms we use to search the chess-tree can be applied to >>>other problems, maybe ones where every ply added (to infinity) will increase the >>>running time of the algorithm. These algorithms are demonstrably O(exp(n)). >>>The statement "Chess is O(1)" has absolutely zero meaning. >> >>Nonsense. There are chess algorithms, and the rules of chess are a part of those >>algorithms. > >That's not what you said, though. It was an abbreviation. You have probably read my other posts, so you know that I meant "good chess algorithms". >But given those algorithms, specialized for chess, I would like for you to show >me one that is O(1). You haven't yet. Take a look at Crafty, for example, it has available source code.
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.