Originally posted by BowmannPersonally, I think this is a stupid exercise, counting the possible moves, that is. There are many positions in the course a game and many possible moves but often, only a few are viable moves. Sometimes, there's three or less and anything else loses well within 40 moves. It's purely a mathematical exercise that has no bearing on the real world (except for computer programmers, I suppose).
There are 2.5 x 10^116 different possible games of chess of 40 moves per player or fewer. By comparison, there are an estimated 10^79 electrons in the known universe.
When a computer looks ahead from a position during play, each successive single move (a ply) costs about a factor of 6 in computing power.
Originally posted by big barReading this rambling sentence gave me a pretty good idea of infinity.
thank you, i have heard such figures and thus the quandry--- the universal atom count is objective and subject to enourmous doubt as to it's very substance. there in lies the problem... i wrestle with ( today anyway) that is why chess is so challenging to so many minds . by the way, and i could be incorrect but, those possible or better yet probable chess ...[text shortened]... against the very same player... and then replicat that by the amount of games played , etc etc.
Originally posted by Bowmannhttp://www.mathsnet.net/articles/article_1234.html
There are 2.5 x 10^116 different possible games of chess of 40 moves per player or fewer. By comparison, there are an estimated 10^79 electrons in the known universe.
When a computer looks ahead from a position during play, each successive single move (a ply) costs about a factor of 6 in computing power.
Originally posted by big barIt appears finite to me. 64 squares, 32 pieces, on a 2-dimensional xy plane--has to be finite. Some say for an electron to exist it has to be measured, until then, it doesn't exist. It has no width, length, and depth but it has dimension. This becomes philosophical thought after a bit... using a beginning or ending is merely pointing to a reference point in time, even though time is infinite at the speed of light, it doesn't exist until measured.
i question it's existence to the point that for something to exist it must have an end or a beginning( matter etc.) so, is there an infinite amount of possiblities to the possible moves of the aggregate of all chess games ever played?
Originally posted by icon155Of course it's finite. You can count all the electrons you want, but none of them count over the board.
It appears finite to me. 64 squares, 32 pieces, on a 2-dimensional xy plane--has to be finite. Some say for an electron to exist it has to be measured, until then, it doesn't exist. It has no width, length, and depth but it has dimension. This becomes philosophical thought after a bit... using a beginning or ending is merely pointing to a reference point in time, even though time is infinite at the speed of light, it doesn't exist until measured.
Originally posted by BowmannWow!!! Holy sh!t, Bowmann!!! Education is a wonderful thing, huh?
There are 2.5 x 10^116 different possible games of chess of 40 moves per player or fewer. By comparison, there are an estimated 10^79 electrons in the known universe.
When a computer looks ahead from a position during play, each successive single move (a ply) costs about a factor of 6 in computing power.
Originally posted by WulebgrEarlier in the thread, it was mentined that there were 10 x 120 atoms in the universe but latter 10 x 70 electrons. I would have thougth that there would have been more electrons than atoms, and without counting for other particles such as the quarks, anti quarks, and others protons, neutrons a etc. Someone must be wrong here and of course only if one considers our universe but again where does this leave three dimensional chess, this is mind buggling.
http://www.mathsnet.net/articles/article_1234.html
1 edit
Originally posted by Bowmannreference please if you have it handy?
There are 2.5 x 10^116 different possible games of chess of 40 moves per player or fewer. By comparison, there are an estimated 10^79 electrons in the known universe.
When a computer looks ahead from a position during play, each successive single move (a ply) costs about a factor of 6 in computing power.
i'm guessing you didn't count them yourself... although hats off to you if so.
edit: big bar, don't listen to the capitalisation police.
Originally posted by BowmannThe poster mistyped, meaning to reference the figure I gave of 10^82 atoms, in contrast to your own 10^79 electrons. The inconsistency between these two numbers is the point. In my search earlier this morning, I found it much easier to turn up credible sources with your figure, so the error was mine.
Where?
Several of these sources indicate 10^79 is the number of electrons in the known universe. Some of them assert that the universe itself is infinite, while what we can know of it remains finite.
Originally posted by big barThen how about this one:
buffalo, the exercise is not about winning or losing moves. it is about possible moves, thus far in this thread there has been no finite answer provided. thanks buffalo and sry that it's stupid to you but not for my purposes.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=32137&page=1