Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Aug 14, 2013 at 18:26 comment added Joel David Hamkins @BorisBukh, your nitpick is discussed already in the comments on the question.
Aug 14, 2013 at 18:05 comment added Boris Bukh A nitpick: a "position" in chess is more than the position of the pieces, it is actually a tuple (position of the pieces, whose turn it is, number of moves since capture/pawn movement, number of times a given position occurred in the past). This proof does not work for this more refined notion of "position".
Aug 4, 2013 at 20:49 comment added Joel David Hamkins Yes, I agree, but why should that stop us from making some definite calculations in these cases with still lots of pawns? To my way of thinking, there is still a lot we can say about the legal proportion of positions using specific piece collections, if we only make the calculations.
Aug 4, 2013 at 16:14 comment added The Masked Avenger In the above, I should be more clear and say 6 sets of opposing pawns.
Aug 4, 2013 at 15:56 comment added The Masked Avenger You can actuallly consider all configurations with 6 black and 6 white pawns present which have not captured. The problem is we still don't know how such legal games stand in relation to all legal configurations. Domotorps consideration of 28 will play a significant role,if for no other reason than helping to determine the set of legal multisets of pieces.
Aug 4, 2013 at 3:56 comment added Joel David Hamkins Let's start small. Suppose there are 31 pieces, with all 16 pawns present. So at most one of them is out-of-file. But then a similar calculation will kick in to still give a very small proportion of legal positions. Right? And then we can aim to consider 30 pieces with all 16 pawns still present, etc., until the bound isn't much good.
Aug 4, 2013 at 3:28 comment added The Masked Avenger Good. Now on to the hard part, involving one or more captures.
Aug 4, 2013 at 2:46 history edited Joel David Hamkins CC BY-SA 3.0
added 11 characters in body
Aug 4, 2013 at 2:40 history answered Joel David Hamkins CC BY-SA 3.0