Author: Tania Devora
Date: 11:10:01 12/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2000 at 12:44:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... Anybody can write how many numbers are 10^120? I dont have idea how many is that. Thanks.
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.