Author: Uri Blass
Date: 19:52:45 11/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2002 at 22:40:42, Mike Byrne wrote: >On November 28, 2002 at 22:20:02, Tanya Deborah wrote: > >>On November 28, 2002 at 22:05:39, Mike Byrne wrote: >> >>>snip >>>>> >>>>>All your answers are welcome... >>>>> >>>>>My best Regards! >>>>> >>>>>Tanya. >>>> >>>>6.5104179521361946395624758693608e+308 >>>> >>>>I know this is the exact number of chess positions, because I counted them one >>>>day using my Palm and Chess genius. >>>> >>>>But how do you count all the atoms in the universe? I might need a newer Palm >>>>for that one ...hmmmm ....yea, I could that on of those new palms. >>>> >>>>Hold on - let me go talk to my wife and explain to her why I need a new palm. >>>> >>>>THANKS - You gave me the perfect reason for a new Palm - to count all the atoms >>>>in the universe. >>>> >>>>eh ...Does anybody want to help? >>> >>> >>>got the answer for atoms - it's right here >>> >>>" >>>It seems, then, that the number of atoms in the Universe is at least about 4e78, >>>but perhaps as many as 6e79. I would suggest 1e79 as a reasonable estimate. That >>>is, 10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 >>>000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 atoms. >>>" >>> >> >> >>Thanks Mike, very nice page. But how about the total number of chess >>positions??? >> >> , >>>http://www.sunspot.noao.edu/sunspot/pr/answerbook/universe.html >>> >>>looks like "positions in chess" beats "atoms in the universe" by a fair amount >>>.... >>> >>>...now about the 32 man EGTB that I was thinking about - how many drives would I >>>need?? >>> >>> >>>;>) > > >I gave you the number 6.5104179521361946395624758693608e+308 that is 6.5 x10 to >the 308 or just add 308 zeroes ... > >6,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Your number is wrong The number of positions is clearly smaller. You gave an estimate for the number of games and this number is also wrong. I rememeber that I wrote a program to find an upper bound for the number of chess positions and found that it is less than 10^48 It is possible to search for it and maybe find it in the ccc search engine. Uri > >Now that number might be a little high - that was assuming on average of 35 >moves for 100 moves or 200 ply. 35^200 is 6.5e308. Most papers underestimate >the number of games to about 1e110 or so. But even a 35 move game for 50 moves >or 100 ply will give you 2.5e154 (35^100) amd that is still larger than the >number of atoms in the universe. > >We know it's finite number and that it's more than the number of atoms in the >universe - I happened to write an English paper on this over 20 years ago. > >Now those many numbers - others come up with their own numbers - here's one I >just found on google by searching "legal chess games" his number is "just" under >my number I quickly calculated above by a factor of a 140 trillon or so. (if >you were off by factor of 10 -- you would be 10x off so we're talking >140,000,000,000,000X - but what's a few hundred trillion between friends? ;>) > >http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1994/04/msg00023.html > >Michael
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.