Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:37:00 02/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2005 at 10:34:54, Tord Romstad wrote: >On February 22, 2005 at 09:11:04, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 22, 2005 at 07:38:09, Tord Romstad wrote: >> >>>Are you sure? It sounds very unlikely to me. I am too lazy to do any >>>calculations right now, but I think solving 9x9 go should be roughly as >>>difficult as solving chess. >> >>easy to see that >>3^81<10^40 so it seems that it is easy to find smaller upper bound for the >>number of possible positions in go <snipped> >It is not entirely trivial to compute a good upper bound for the number of >positions in 9x9 go, I am fairly sure the number must be bigger than >3^81. In addition to the board state, you must also consider the number of >captured pieces for both sides, the side to move, and the state of ko >fights. You may be right. I simply generalized from chess about go because in chess what counts except rare positions is the pieces on the board. number of captured pieces is clear to me but I do not know what is the state of co fights. The only thing that I remember about go from the time that I was a child is that in order to capture a subset A of the opponent pieces you need to put a piece at distance one from set A(rook direction) when there are no more empty squares in the board at distance one from A(rook direction) after your move. Maybe there are more rules about it that I do not know or maybe I did not play by the correct rules of go. 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.