Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:44:52 12/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2000 at 12:25:18, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 23, 2000 at 09:01:29, Joshua Lee wrote: > >>this is over a google and even if your program could search at 5 trillion nodes >>per second it wouldn't solve chess in your lifetime. >> >> 64^64 is one number that comes to mind 3.9402006196394479212279040100144e+115 > >The number of leagl positions is clearly smaller than 64^64. > >I do not understand why do you think about 64^64. > >Uri I still think 10^120 is a reasonable estimate, because a position is not just made up of the pieces on the board. It _also_ includes the game history up to that position, because of 50 move and repetition considerations. The _same_ position can occur with many different game histories, and each of those positions would be unique as far as the game of chess goes. Thinking about it, 10^120 might be off by a few hundred zeroes, in fact...
This page took 0.01 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.