![]() |
|
|
#155 | |
|
Sep 2006
The Netherlands
36 Posts |
Quote:
you will end up at something like for KPK: 81664 positions for one side to move 84012 positions for the other side to move Thanks, Vincent Last fiddled with by diep on 2011-04-11 at 11:05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#156 | |
|
Sep 2006
The Netherlands
36 Posts |
Quote:
As for the estimate: there is 2 requirements for 1 side to be able to castle. A king must be on e1 (resp e8) AND the original rook must be on a1. To use a rough estimate, this happens in less than 0.1% of the positions. So we can safely ignore counting this, knowing that in my calculation i already do not reduce for attacks to the king, which is quite a big percentage. Yet all this is lineair overhead or lineair reduction. It's noise. Same thing is the case for en passant by the way though this adds up a bigger percentage to the number of legal positions than castling as it involves 2 pawns and 2 empty squares. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#157 |
|
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
26·131 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#158 | |
|
Jun 2003
7×167 Posts |
Quote:
Minimally, I'm asking for a number. A complete solution would additional specify a particular configuration and would demonstrate that every position was legal in the "could be reached from the opening position in a legal game" sense of the word. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#159 | |
|
Dec 2010
Monticello
5×359 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#160 | |
|
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
26×131 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#161 | |
|
Sep 2006
The Netherlands
36 Posts |
Quote:
Right now the exponent is not even close to reality; i see a big difference between 10^43, the current estimate, and my guess being something in the 10^3x where x is probably something around 4-6, making it 10^34 to 10^36 As the number in front of that 'y' in y * 10^34 is not even going to get mentionned, is it relevant, knowing we speak about something that will influence the number y for less than a few percent; this where by measuring the average number of possibilities in a guided chess search, i know from statistics that the average number of semi-legal moves is 40 (nearly exactly 40, so not 35 as you will find in literature from before the times that we had computerchessprograms where we could measure it with). Knowing there is 64 squares and many pieces of the own color at the board, that means that the number of illegal positions, caused by attacks of the opponent, is much more frequent, than the number of en passant positions + positions with castling. Yet we reduce only a small factor for that, as the most important thing is to get a much better exponent; right now the exponent in all published work is so ugly bad estimated, that i'd argue it's better to first estimate that more correct. Arguing here about something far behind the dot is not a hobby mine when the current estimate is approximately 1000000000% off, as they didn't know how to count the number of possibilities. Regards, Vincent Last fiddled with by diep on 2011-04-11 at 17:16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#162 | |
|
Sep 2006
The Netherlands
36 Posts |
Quote:
So at most at 1 square on the board, you can capture en passant. The only thing that needs to get hashed then is that square you can capture en passant at that moment. For example from openings position: 1.e4,f5 2.e5,d5 Now white is allowed to capture en passant at d6 and remove the pawn from d5 from the board; capturing en passant at f6 and removing the f5 pawn is not legal. So at most from 2 sides you can capture a pawn en passant; for example: 1.e4,Nf6 2.e5,Ng8 3.c4,Nf6 4.c5,d5 now white is allowed to take en passant at d6 with either the c5 pawn or the e5 pawn. Regards, Vincent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#163 | |
|
Sep 2006
The Netherlands
2D916 Posts |
Quote:
a) hard upperbound b) hard lowerbound c) estimate how many positions there probably are Yet the methods used to calculate are so primitive that so far the estimate is 10^43 positions and nothing else exists. All the mathguys have only generated estimates which is fine with me, but they are off by factor 10^7 to 10^9 or so for the latest number estimated which was 10^43. As i have shown the upperbound on 32 pieces is 10^32 The difficult to calculate and most likely biggest entity is 31 pieces. Also interesting to calculate, in order to prove it has less positions than 31 pieces, that will be 30 pieces. Only when this number is bigger than 31 pieces, then calculating 29 pieces also becomes interesting, otherwise from my viewpoint it is not. The grand total of that all will be the new estimate. When that estimate gets calculated in an upperbound method, that's fine with me, yet it will get cited as the 'real number of chesspositions' elsewhere, so it better be well calculated instead of the rudimentary methods i've seen so far; All estimates so far you didn't need even a computer for to calculate; so to speak the old Egyptians could already calculate it, had they known the modern rules of chess :) Regards, Vincent Last fiddled with by diep on 2011-04-11 at 17:46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#164 | |
|
Jun 2003
100100100012 Posts |
Quote:
1 e3 e5 2 Qh5 h6 3 Qg5 hg 4 h4 b5 5 h5 Qf6 6 Nf3 Qf4 7 ef e4 8 Nh4 gh 9 Nc3 Ba3 10 ba b4 11 a4 Ba6 12 Nd1 Bb5 13 ab Nc6 14 Be2 Ne5 15 fe Ne7 Call the configuration after black's 15th move "configuration a". After 16 Bg4 Ng8 17 Bf3 Ne7 18 Be2 We are back to configuration a, but with black to move. Hence configuration a is achievable with all Rooks castleable with either side to move. We can achieve configuration a with any possible castleability situation in two further moves by moving away then back to where it was, each side's King, Rook, or minor piece, depending upon whether we want to remove castleability from both, just one, or none of that side's Rooks. Finally we reach the attached configuration by advancing each of the unmoved pawns two spaces, and we may do this in any order. In particular each of the five pawns of either colour may be the last to move, and therefore be eligible to be captured e.p. Or the last pawn to move could have reached its position in two moves, leaving no pawns eligible for capture e.p. A corollary to this is that if N is an upper bound to the number of possible legal configurations, then 192*N is an upper bound to the number of possible positions. I suspect the actual ratio of positions to configurations is closer to 2. Last fiddled with by Mr. P-1 on 2011-04-11 at 18:16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#165 | |
|
Sep 2006
The Netherlands
36 Posts |
Quote:
For an explanation on what en passant is, there is a few good diagrams. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_passant Last fiddled with by diep on 2011-04-11 at 18:47 |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Placeholder: When is it legal to torrent BBC tv stuff? | kladner | Lounge | 3 | 2018-10-01 20:32 |
| When is it legal to torrent BBC tv stuff? | jasong | jasong | 12 | 2018-09-30 01:43 |
| Vote chess game 4: To be decided? Some chess variant will be interesting to consider with! | Raman | Chess | 6 | 2016-12-06 06:50 |
| legal/historical Jesus? | jasong | Soap Box | 37 | 2010-01-07 02:42 |
| A Legal/Moral Question | MS63 | Teams | 10 | 2005-12-10 13:12 |