Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:23:55 01/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 2005 at 04:21:24, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 21, 2005 at 03:33:21, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 20, 2005 at 20:45:23, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On January 20, 2005 at 20:04:22, Louis Fagliano wrote: >>>[snip] >>>>Actually 10^43rd power does not shrink at all. You started out "shrinking" by >>>>throwing out idiotic moves when considering all possible chess games which is >>>>something like 10^120th power. That number can be "shrunk" by throwing out >>>>idiotic games. But 10^43rd power is the number is the number of legal positions >>>>in chess, not the number of different possible games since there are an >>>>inumberable ways of reaching any particular legal position by an inumberable >>>>number of different move orders. The number of legal positions can never be >>>>"shrunken" because every legal position must be considered in order to solve >>>>chess regardless of whether or not the moves that preceeded it in order to reach >>>>that position were idiotic or masterful. >>> >>>10^43rd power can be shrunken by a factor of 4 through simple reflections of the >>>board. Perhaps there are additional symmetry arguments that can reduce it >>>further. >> >> >>Where is the proof that 10^43 is correct? >> >>I read that Vincent claimed that it is correct but I saw no proof for it. >>I do not say that it is wrong but we need a link to some proof before claiming >>that it is at most 10^43 > >That is based upon 162 bits to encode the position. >I believe that you did a counter program which came up with a different figure. >Do you remember what it was? 162 bits means 2^162>10^48 so I do not see how you get 10^43 I remember that I got something smaller than 10^47 but not 10^43 Uri
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.