Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 17:43:58 11/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2003 at 19:46:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 06, 2003 at 11:22:54, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On November 06, 2003 at 09:47:32, Robert Hyatt 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. >>>> >>>>-- >>>>GCP >>> >>> >>>Eh? The distinction is _huge_. >>> >>>One searches the tree in one direction and requires very little memory. The >>>other searches the tree in another direction and requires huge memory. >>> >>>I'm not sure how you could say that the distinction is very hazy. They >>>are as different as night and day... >> >>However, MTD(infinity) is equivalent to (searches exactly the same tree as) SSS. > > >That's fine. A best-first (breadth-first) search can search _exactly_ >the same tree as a minimax (depth-first) search also. Doesn't mean a >thing about how similar the two approaches are, however... > >However, the trees are grown differently. I don't think any book I >know of uses the actual search space as a way to define a search >strategy... > > >> >>http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~jonathan/Grad/plaat.phd.ps >> >>Dave Fine, but the point is that in this particular case, they are not as different as night and day. :-) Dave
This page took 0.01 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.