Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:41:18 11/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 07, 2003 at 09:22:45, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >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. No it isn't. Suppose one is 100x _slower_ than the other? > >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. MTD(f) is pure alpha/beta depth-first. Nothing else. > >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? Why do you conclude I haven't read his thesis? Do you recall that _I_ played with MTD(f) for several months? Where do you think I got the info??? > >Geez, maybe tomorrow you'll start giving 'proof by induction' too. That is what you are doing, not me. Just because two searches happen to search the same tree does _not_ mean they are equivalent algorithms. To suggest such is lunacy... > >-- >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.