anonymous
  • anonymous
On PS6, is it cheating to implement a computer cheater?
MIT 6.00 Intro Computer Science (OCW)
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
katieb
  • katieb
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
anonymous
  • anonymous
Specifically: My strategy for implementing a computer player is just to write a function that calls is_valid_word with everything in word_list, finds point values for every word that returns True, and returns the highest-scoring word. It works, but is that cheating?
shadowfiend
  • shadowfiend
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't ;) I'd say implement it that way first, then think of ways you could implement it without ``cheating''.
anonymous
  • anonymous
It's not cheating and here's why. It's implementing a "brute force" or "exhaustive search" algorithm, and is probably the "gold standard" to test any other algorithm against. Once you have a way of absolutely knowing (by exhaustive search), then you have a reference for measuring performance improvement of other algorithms. Also, looking at it pedagogically, by PS6 we have not been introduced to sophisticated algorithms to avoid exhaustive search. To be strict, it would be cheating to use some algorithm that you know only by--ugh--reading ahead. :)

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.