Author: Gregor Overney
Date: 23:25:31 12/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
64^64 is 39402006196394479212279040100143613805079739270465446667948293404245721771497210611414266254884915640806627990306816 to be precise. End of 1997, there was a similar discussion going on. Maybe a quick look into the archive might help. Someone posted a link to a web-page that tries to answer exactly this question. However, the number I had in mind is significantly bigger than 64^64. I do not think it is relevant to assume that a computer will handle all those moves. It is an academic question that deserve an answer and it somehow eludes me what the number of atoms in our known Universe has to do with this. Especially, since we do not know how much degrees of freedom are in a small drop of water. Yes, we have baryons and leptons of a finite number in this drop. But also the field particles add to the degree of freedoms. Unfortunately, QCD does not describe nature to the fullest extend. So, even 64^64 might be too small to perfectly describe a drop of water. Gregor 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
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.