Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Search algorithms

Author: Dave Gomboc

Date: 01:29:08 11/12/03

Go up one level in this thread


On November 10, 2003 at 16:02:19, Russell Reagan wrote:

>On November 10, 2003 at 11:35:17, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>
>>This is the whole point that
>>is interesting -- that these two search methods which would at first seem
>>unrelated are actually highly related.
>
>They only seem somewhat related to me, not "highly related". I guess it really
>depends on how close things have to be before a person thinks they are highly
>related, or somewhat related.
>
>Are apes and humans highly related, or somewhat related? You would probably get
>different answers from a person who has spent their life studying apes and their
>habits, and from an outside observer who has never seen apes or humans before
>(hypothetically). An evolutionist and a creationist would probably have
>drastically different opinions about the relationship between apes and humans.
>Obviously we share some traits with apes. Some things are drastically different.
>Apes don't live in houses or drive cars or play chess.
>
>Are dolphins and sharks highly related, or loosely related? A marine biologist
>would say they are different, while a child who knows nothing about species and
>the difference between mammals and fish would think they were basically the
>same. A dolphin and a shark are both things that swim in the water.
>
>MTD(f) and SSS* are both algorithms that search trees. Dolphins and sharks have
>other properties loosely in common. They have similarly shaped bodies, both swim
>in similar ways, but there are still differences if you want to be technical,
>and a dolphin and a shark are clearly not "equivalent" because they may share
>certain properties. Are two completely differnt animals somehow "highly related"
>if the can run at the same speed or they take the same number of steps to get
>from one point to another? I don't think so. MTD(f) and SSS* may have certain
>similar properties, but they are no more equivalent than a dolphin and a shark.
>
>To me, Negascout and PVS are "highly related". Technically they are different,
>but in practical situations in chess programs they are the exact same thing.
>MTD(f) and SSS* are only somewhat related, because they are both tree searching
>algorithms, and they share one or two properties.

I'm not relating MTD(f) and SSS* -- you're misreading.

*SIGH*

Dave



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.