Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:50:09 11/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2003 at 11:23:36, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On November 06, 2003 at 09:49:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 06, 2003 at 09:33:28, Renze Steenhuisen wrote: >> >>>On November 06, 2003 at 08:33:49, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On November 06, 2003 at 05:45:53, Renze Steenhuisen wrote: >>>> >>>>>Depth-First Algorithms: >>>>> AlphaBeta (Fail-hard, Fail-Soft) >>>>> MTD(f) >>>>> >>>>>Best-First Algorithms: >>>>> SSS* >>>> >>>>The distinction between the three (and best-first and depth-first) >>>>is very hazy, read "Research re: search and research" by Aske Plaat. >>> >>>Done that already, but as Aske stated: they search the same nodes, but in a >>>different order. >>> >>>MTD(f) and the others are still DF algorithms, the second list works differently >>>(i.e., the order in which the nodes are expanded is different). >>> >>>Or am I talking rubish? >>> >>>Renze >>> >>>PS: Am I missing algorithms (either important or not)? >>>PS2: Are Scout and NegaScout equal? >> >> >>They are just variations on the same idea. All fall under the umbrella >>of alpha/beta depth-first search... (this is in response to your question >>PS2). >> >>depth-first and breadth-first (best-first is one example of the latter) >>are totally unrelated other than the fact they both search a tree. > >Well, no. Read Plaat's thesis. > >Dave I have read it. It does _not_ say the two are equivalent in any shape or form, except for the actual tree searched in certain circumstances. Depth-first and breadth-first are completely different approaches to growing a tree, even if on some occasions they grow the _same_ tree.
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.