1 edit
Originally posted by cashthetrashThe magnitude difference between (the estimated) number of atoms in the universe and the game-tree complexity of chess is 44. 10^44 is an obscenely large number. Too large to even give a good measurement of how large.
What was the point?
So now imagine how difficult doing anything with a number of iterations near the number of atoms in the universe. It's impossible to even think about. And then imagine something 10^44 times harder. The brain boggles as to how you could possibly even analyse a minuscule subset of such a set.
Originally posted by RagnorakOk, you can have the last word - anything to end the repetitive BS. 😕
Nitpicking = asking for my debating opponent to stick to an established language (algebraic notation) = 😴😴😴?
Fair enough, you don't have a viable position. I can accept that.
D
Originally posted by XanthosNZZan I have no arguments with what you are saying. I was just saying I was skeptical about the estimates of how many atoms there are in the Universe is all. To even say there is a range to me seems inaccurate with no proof. It just doesn't seem comparable. Granted both are so extreme beyond belief. But Man when you think about how tiny an atom is and how unknowingly huge the Universe is I can't see how or why anyone would consider the comparison. However how could I prove it wrong. I wish I knew for sure what was at the end of the Universe. Or if there is an end. But thinking about this has made me forget the topic of this thread.
The magnitude difference between (the estimated) number of atoms in the universe and the game-tree complexity of chess is 44. 10^44 is an obscenely large number. Too large to even give a good measurement of how large.
So now imagine how difficult doing anything with a number of iterations near the number of atoms in the universe. It's impossible to even ...[text shortened]... . The brain boggles as to how you could possibly even analyse a minuscule subset of such a set.
Originally posted by Will EverittI'm not impressed. I bet you're only counting atoms in the observable universe. (actually sarcasm aside I think there are 10^80 atoms in the observable universe, meaning if we go by the 10^50 already proposed then there are still more atoms than chess moves).
There are more possible games of chess then atoms in the universe.
Originally posted by Ramiri15Haha - so stick that in your pipe and smoke it Picard.😛
I'm not impressed. I bet you're only counting atoms in the observable universe. (actually sarcasm aside I think there are 10^80 atoms in the observable universe, meaning if we go by the 10^50 already proposed then there are still more atoms than chess moves).
Originally posted by RagnorakRag I am not sure, but maybe he was referring to the numbers and letters assigned on the board rather than the algebraic notation of the moves and pieces. Even if you place a Ra1, Ra2 ... on an on it still contains the A-1 A2 squares. And if you ask me to explain what I just said I will refuse. That's my story and I am sticking to it.
Nitpicking = asking for my debating opponent to stick to an established language (algebraic notation) = 😴😴😴?
Fair enough, you don't have a viable position. I can accept that.
D
1 edit
Originally posted by Ramiri15Except Shannon's Number is ~10^123. Try reading links next time.
I'm not impressed. I bet you're only counting atoms in the observable universe. (actually sarcasm aside I think there are 10^80 atoms in the observable universe, meaning if we go by the 10^50 already proposed then there are still more atoms than chess moves).
EDIT: 10^50 is something like number of games of 40 moves or less (this is from memory).
Originally posted by cashthetrashThis is getting completely ridiculous. I get the impression you guys are arguing for the sake of it.
Rag I am not sure, but maybe he was referring to the numbers and letters assigned on the board rather than the algebraic notation of the moves and pieces. Even if you place a Ra1, Ra2 ... on an on it still contains the A-1 A2 squares. And if you ask me to explain what I just said I will refuse. That's my story and I am sticking to it.
To refresh all of our memories, Dr Jeckyll's initial statement was..."Billions and billions of the possible infinite number of chess moves are complete non moves, eg,a1-a2-a3-a4-a5-a6 in succession would never be considered in a real game."
Now, tell me trash, why would 1. Ra1 2. Ra2 3. Ra3 4. Ra4 5. Ra5 in succession never be considered in a real game?
Thanks for your time,
D
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakShhhhhhhhhhh don't tell anyone. Ok I lied I will give you a reply.
This is getting completely ridiculous. I get the impression you guys are arguing for the sake of it.
To refresh all of our memories, Dr Jeckyll's initial statement was..."Billions and billions of the possible infinite number of chess moves are complete non moves, eg,a1-a2-a3-a4-a5-a6 in succession would never be considered in a real game."
Now, tell ...[text shortened]... 4. Ra4 5. Ra5 in succession never be considered in a real game?
Thanks for your time,
D
Why is the sky blue?
"Now, tell me trash, why would 1. Ra1 2. Ra2 3. Ra3 4. Ra4 5. Ra5 in succession never be considered in a real game?"
Mr. Trash to you. Or you may call me by my first made up name. Cash.
Most players would not move a rook one square at a time that many move in a row. Now would you like to play a game with me and consider doing that?
But the real issue is not the nit picking stuff anyway. What he was trying to point out to you in the first place was that many moves on boards are not moves that would normaly be made. I sure you already know that. But you chose to critisise spelling grammar or pick around the outside of what someone is saying. Look I don't care if you are a plonker or not but this thread is old and I have games to play. Now insult me with your best shot. If that's what gets it up for you.
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakShow a game where that occurred then?
....why would 1. Ra1 2. Ra2 3. Ra3 4. Ra4 5. Ra5 in succession never be considered in a real game?
D
It was the general theme in any case - [as if you didn't know] - there are more [by far] possible moves that would never be used in a 'real' chess game than genuine moves.
thank you - you're welcome.
Originally posted by Freddie2006I guess you mean a2. As I said, Black would have to capture all white pieces and pawns to get pawns on a2-7. So far so good, but you'd have to get the white pieces and pawns to the right squares, and that's where it gets difficult.
I'll work on it.
First attempts show a negative result. As far as I can tell it is impossible, because there are not enough white pieces to sacrifice to get the black f pawn up to a7.