Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 19:44:13 01/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2005 at 10:40:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >There are those that will argue that the complexity >of chess is O(1) simply because chess is finite. And once you search to the end >of the game, further searches will take no longer (going deeper produces no new >information and takes no more additional time since every branch stops when the >game ends along that branch). But I'll leave that nonsense to those that want >to take things too literally. :) I'll use the good old stand-by O(W^D) for the >complexity of chess for today, tomorrow, and for as long as I personally will >live... > >This is one of those discussions that do nothing more than waste time and >bandwidth, with neither side able to convince the other of whether it is O(1) or >exponential. :) Using the same logic which concludes that chess is O(1), isn't a linear search also O(1)? To use a tool such as O-notation in such a way seems to render it useless (to the person who uses it incorrectly). Reminds me of the person who goes to the doctor and says, "Doc, it hurts every time I bend my arm like this..." And the doctor says, "Then stop bending your arm like that." You are right. What a waste of time.
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.