Hey folks,the concerning questions about it I already posted in a thread on another part of this forum:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=2545
Well,I found out.The problem of solvability of this chess variant is still open.
Good news that total number of legal positions is somewhat less than in checkers, which is ~10^22 and was solved by computers not so long ago.
Bad (or maybe not so bad) news that the same counting approach as in checkers isn't much of use here.
This means that if one can't construct algorithm showing forced win for either side,must figure out how to show the game is a draw with the best play.
Of course,there are no hash tables (yet) for 5×5 chess and total number of positions is still TOO large to be evaluated directly but that's the next game to be solved by (super)comp .
Challenge for computer chess programmers and computer scientists.
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=2545
Well,I found out.The problem of solvability of this chess variant is still open.
Good news that total number of legal positions is somewhat less than in checkers, which is ~10^22 and was solved by computers not so long ago.
Bad (or maybe not so bad) news that the same counting approach as in checkers isn't much of use here.
This means that if one can't construct algorithm showing forced win for either side,must figure out how to show the game is a draw with the best play.
Of course,there are no hash tables (yet) for 5×5 chess and total number of positions is still TOO large to be evaluated directly but that's the next game to be solved by (super)comp .
Challenge for computer chess programmers and computer scientists.
10^15<Number of positions<10^17
More correctly :)
More correctly :)
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill
