Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 00:50:08 05/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 18, 2001 at 03:46:27, David Rasmussen wrote: >On May 17, 2001 at 20:52:51, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>On May 17, 2001 at 17:50:11, Ralf Elvsén wrote: >> >>>I think Jesper is concerned over the use of the O()-notation. If one >>>thinks chess scales exponentially with search depth in a "practical" >>>sense only, one should say "my-homemade-O(a^n)". >> >>Chess is definitely o(exp(n)) (little-o), whether it is O(exp(n)) (big-O) or >>not. I'm already arguing in a different thread, and I won't expand that here. > >What do you mean by "chess is o(exp(n))" ? What parameter of chess are you >correlating with what other parameter of chess, to say that the function that >describes this correlation is o(exp(n))? Chess is not an algorithm. > >Do you mean e.g. the alpha-beta algorithm? Or do you mean Crafty, viewed as an >"algorithm"? I wasn't very clear. I meant that if you use the definition that Jesper is using - that is, when "chess" is an algorithm, or Crafty is an algorithm, if you like. Please note that I don't consider this to be so - see some of my other posts in this thread.
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.