Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 01:58:25 05/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2004 at 22:59:15, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On May 19, 2004 at 22:28:50, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>main() {
>> search(10); // search 10 ply depthfirst
>>
>> for i = 1 to 10 // depth limited 1..10 ply search
>> search(i);
>>}
>>
>>search(int depth) {
>> if depth == 0
>> then return eval();
>> else for all moves
>> search(depth-1);
>>}
>>
>>Robert Morgan Hyatt doesn't seem to understand this in his thesis.
>
>
>Find any good ai book. Look up "depth first search". minimax and alpha/beta
>are examples. The idea is that the memory space requirement for depth-first is
>O(d) while the memory space requirement for breadth-first (the _only_
>alternative) is O(w^d).
>
>depth-first search
>
>(algorithm)
>
>Definition: (1) Any search algorithm which considers outgoing edges of a vertex
>before any neighbors of the vertex, that is, outgoing edges of the vertex's
>predecessor in the search. Extremes are searched first. This is easily
>implemented with recursion. (2) An algorithm which marks all vertices in a
>directed graph in the order they are discovered and finished, partitioning the
>graph into a forest.
>
>Also known as DFS.
>
>See also breadth-first search, best-first search.
>
>Note: [CLR90, pages 477-485]
>
>Author: PEB
>
>Or go here:
>
>http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~cs251/OldCourses/1997/topic26/#dfs
>http://www2.toki.or.id/book/AlgDesignManual/BOOK/BOOK2/NODE65.HTM
>
>
>I showed this to a faculty member that teaches AI at another University. He
>responded "is this guy a clown, an idiot, or is he really that stupid?" I think
>that says it all.
>
>So it isn't "Robert Morgan Hyatt" that doesn't know what he is talking about.
>You need to look in the mirror. Once again you are _dead_ busted here. minimax
>and alpha-beta do _exactly_ as the above definition says. Just do a google
>search on depth-first search, read, and stop looking like a fool.
As a psychologist I must defend VD what you want to get here is impossible to do
for him.
>
>And by all means _stop_ making up false definitions to suit your own agenda.
>You can't usurp the meaning of well-known AI terms and re-define them to mean
>something you choose.
>
>Yet one more big lie. When will you grow up and stop?
As a psychologist with the neccessary physiological basics I must object.
Growth, in special growth of knowledge (intelligence is even more difficult to
influence by oneself), is not something one could change at will. Therefore I
wouldn't support the idea of an 'agenda', because that already would require too
much intelligence and knowledge. However weight is an open scale and can well be
influenced by too much eating, but of course you can't "eat" books, because
again that would require intelligence too... A devlish circle.
;)
It is as if you wanted to argue with someone who just failed to pass the entry
examinations for your lectures. Such a guy has no 'agenda'!
>
>lookin' even better, Vincent...
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.