Updated naives theorem

[JDeep1234]

No description provided.

[KTS-o7]

Make the necessary changes and then PR

[KTS-o7]

The changes made to the AlphaBetaPruning/Explaination.md file are not useful for the following reasons:

1. Redundant Code: The new implementation reintroduces the definition of the minimax function, which is already explained earlier in the document. This redundancy does not add value and clutters the explanation.

2. Clarity and Consistency: The original document is more concise and clear in explaining the game loop and the AI's move selection process. The revised document introduces unnecessary complexity without improving the understanding.

3. Example Dry Run: The changes to the dry run example do not provide additional insights or clarity over the original example. The original example was sufficient to demonstrate the AI's decision-making process.

4. Documentation Quality: The original explanation was well-structured and easy to follow. The changes disrupt the flow and coherence of the document, making it harder to understand the overall logic and approach.

Overall, the changes do not enhance the documentation and may reduce its readability and effectiveness.

[KTS-o7]

The changes made in the pull request to the AlphaBetaPruning/GameOf20.py file are not useful for the following reasons:

1. Redundant Logic: The new implementation combines multiple conditional checks into a single line, which, while concise, reduces clarity and maintainability. The original implementation had clearer separation of conditions, making it easier to understand the game logic.

2. Function Parameters: The parameter name change from turn to is_ai_turn does not add significant value and might confuse readers familiar with the original code. Consistency in naming conventions is important for readability.

3. Alpha-Beta Pruning: The new code introduces alpha-beta pruning logic, but the changes do not enhance the performance or accuracy of the minimax function. The original implementation already had alpha-beta pruning effectively integrated.

4. Code Clarity: The original code had well-defined comments that explained each step of the minimax algorithm. The revised code has fewer comments, which may make it harder for others to understand the algorithm without additional context.

5. Game Loop: The changes in the game loop, such as the handling of human and AI moves, introduce unnecessary complexity without improving functionality. The original loop was straightforward and easy to follow.

6. Evaluation and Move Selection: The new code's approach to evaluating and selecting moves does not offer a clear advantage over the original method. The original code's approach was simpler and achieved the same goal.

In summary, while the revised code introduces some stylistic changes, it does not offer functional improvements and may reduce the overall readability and maintainability of the code.

[KTS-o7]

Useful changes but add more comments to explain

[KTS-o7]

Not a useful change

[KTS-o7]

This is done at RVCE, you could have added course code and retain RVCE

[KTS-o7]

This is fine but add more comments to code so it can be understood.