Newsgroups: comp.ai.games
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!sun4nl!aie.nl!news
From: geert@sparc.aie.nl (Geert-Jan van Opdorp)
Subject: Re: Chess - exhaustive searching
Sender: news@aie.nl (News Account)
Organization: AI Engineering BV
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <GEERT.95Apr14194948@sparc.aie.nl>
References: <scottecD6FAH9.2pp@netcom.com> <3ln0ol$ame@mycroft.rand.org>
	<D6GDIx.DM@cs.vu.nl> <3mjel3$q4e@nic.lth.se> <D6zECo.C24@mv.mv.com>
In-Reply-To: sje@mv.mv.com's message of Thu, 13 Apr 1995 16:12:23 GMT
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 17:49:48 GMT


In article <D6zECo.C24@mv.mv.com> sje@mv.mv.com (Steven J. Edwards) writes:


>                                            ...     I hope that no one
>   considers state space enumeration to be a good metric for evaluation
>   of game complexity.  It is a trivial exercise to construct games with
>   arbirarily large spaces that are simple to solve.

It seems to me that examples of trivial games with large spaces do not show
that for non-trivial games the size of the space is not an important
factor of their complexity. If the space is small enough, solving the game
is always trivial.

I've always thought it was to a large extend due to the branching factor
that Go is so much harder then Chess. Am I wrong you think? Or do I 
misinterpret `complexety'? 

Geert-Jan
geert@aie.nl

