Author: margolies,marc
Date: 13:15:54 11/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
I am not sure I have done what you say, butressed your idea. I am saying that the two algorythms perform differently--search differently. I am saying that it is not relevant that they work on the same size dogpile. I am saying the two algorythms can perform with a different order of efficiency. I am saying that on one certain size dogpile a particular algorythm can search with less effort than the other; if you change the size or nature of the dog pile, then the sitch can even reverse. I do not feel comfortable preaching to my betters, but I did take an analysis of alg. course in college so I almost know something about this. On November 07, 2003 at 10:39:47, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On November 07, 2003 at 10:22:13, margolies,marc wrote: > >>it can be irrelevant with specific regard to the numerical efficiency of the >>algorythm. >>We all are familiar with orders of magnitude. I reminding you that while using >>even the case of identical datasets, algorythms perform jobs differently with >>respect to the scale of the data. What is efficient at one scale is too much >>work at another. >>Even when data is the same, and required output is the same, the amount of >>effort in clock cycles to do the job is different, has a different cost in >>resources. That's what makes them different. > >That's what makes them identical in this case: they search the same (amount of) >nodes! > >You've just reinforced my point. > >-- >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.