Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 20:23:19 11/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2002 at 22:52:45, Uri Blass wrote: >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. Yes you are correct -- clearly a big difference - I was counting games but after second thought my second estimate is much close I believe. 1e154 or so. > >You gave an estimate for the number of games >and this number is also wrong. Show me. > >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.