Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Search algorithms

Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto

Date: 06:22:45 11/07/03

Go up one level in this thread


On November 06, 2003 at 19:48:33, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On November 06, 2003 at 10:18:37, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>
>>On November 06, 2003 at 09:47:32, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not sure how you could say that the distinction is very hazy.  They
>>>are as different as night and day...
>>
>>Read the thesis, you will understand.
>>
>>--
>>GCP
>
>This is one of those cases where I don't have to "read the thesis to
>understand".  There's a _ton_ of books that discuss the differences
>between breadth-first and depth-first search strategies.  They are
>_never_ mentioned in the same paragraph as having similar properties.
>Because they don't.

They search the same (amount of) nodes. For game tree search, that's a pretty
fucking important performance criterium.

Discovering the similarity between SSS and AlpahBeta+TT allowed MTD(n,f) to
be developed, which is one of the best tree searching algorithms out
there.

You're saying that's all irrelevant because it's best first and depth
first and hence they have 'automatically' nothing to do with each other
and anyone suggesting otherwhise is 'automatically' wrong even though
you've not read the articles explaining it?

Geez, maybe tomorrow you'll start giving 'proof by induction' too.

--
GCP



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.