Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:42:14 11/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2003 at 22:33:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 06, 2003 at 20:45:57, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On November 06, 2003 at 19:50:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>In this particular case, the algorithms search the same tree. Therefore, I >>think it's reasonable to claim they are they are equivalent in some shape or >>form -- not in all shapes and all forms, but at list with respect to the nodes >>searched and the order in which they are searched. :-) >> >>Dave > > >I don't believe that last is correct. IE with respect to order. Particularly >comparing members of the breadth-first family to the depth-first family and >not just picking one specific algorithm from each. BTW, I hope you don't try to convince me all sort algorithms are equivalent, just because they take the same list and produce the same final result. :)
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.