How Many 4PC Custom Starting Positions are Possible?

Sort:
Avatar of KiIls
grable wrote:
BoxJellyfishChess wrote:

if the position contains no pawns, then it will basically be the same as other positions but with a different orientation. Does this count? 

 

So we subtract all the positions without pawns, and add it back, divided by 4 - one for each rotation? In other words, find how many there are with pawns, then multiply it by 3/4 and subtract that quantity.

 

PositionsWithoutPawns = 122^160-4*(25^160)+4*(30^159*69)

 

So let's get our final final number:

142^160-4*(30^160)+4*(30^159*84) - 3*[122^160-4*(25^160)+4*(30^159*69)]/4, or about... wait for it...

 

2.3*10^344, yep, still the same with this order of magnitude.

 

And obviously, I'm using W|A for this, you think I'm doing this by hand!?

 

ok.

Avatar of 4Player-Pug

i'm a math whiz, so 2.3*10^344 is about...

Think about just 2.3*10^10. That's 23000000000. Or 23 billion.

I will make this easier to figure out myself even though I'm breaking the rules of math and scientific expressions. 23*10^344 is...

230000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Or, two hundred thirty tredecicentillion. That's just crazy!

Avatar of the_nub_of_nopknight
4Player-Pug wrote:

i'm a math whiz, so 2.3*10^344 is about...

Think about just 2.3*10^10. That's 23000000000. Or 23 billion.

I will make this easier to figure out myself even though I'm breaking the rules of math and scientific expressions. 23*10^344 is...

230000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Or, two hundred thirty tredecicentillion. That's just crazy!

im still too lazy o read all

Avatar of MayimChayim

this is why I like math so much tongue.png

Avatar of ChessDemon732

What about positions in which all are dead pieces

Avatar of BoxJellyfishChess
ChessDemon732 wrote:

What about positions in which all are dead pieces

you are correct, grable didn't factor this in correctly I think. He subtracted 30^160 for each group of positions with only a color (4 times), but it's not actually 30. you have 29 piece types, and they can be either dead or a single color. So 58 + 2 (wall or blank) = 60; for 160 squares you would subtract 60^160. Am I wrong?

Avatar of the_nub_of_nopknight
BoxJellyfishChess wrote:
ChessDemon732 wrote:

What about positions in which all are dead pieces

you are correct, grable didn't factor this in correctly I think. He subtracted 30^160 for each group of positions with only a color (4 times), but it's not actually 30. you have 29 piece types, and they can be either dead or a single color. So 58 + 2 (wall or blank) = 60; for 160 squares you would subtract 60^160. Am I wrong?

idk and i dont care lol

Avatar of qilp
BoxJellyfishChess wrote:

you have 29 piece types, and they can be either dead or a single color. So 58 + 2 (wall or blank) = 60; for 160 squares you would subtract 60^160. Am I wrong?

There are 28 piece types (7 classic + 21 fairy).
There are 5 colors (RBYG + dead).
28 * 5 = 140 different pieces.
140 + 2 (wall or blank) = 142 different states for each square.
142^160 ≈ 2,323459e+344 different states for 160 squares or for 4PC board.

Avatar of Pika_Pokemon
MayimChayim wrote:

this is why I like math so much

YEZ! MATH IZ DA BEST!

Avatar of Pika_Pokemon
the_nub_of_nopknight wrote:
BoxJellyfishChess wrote:
ChessDemon732 wrote:

What about positions in which all are dead pieces

you are correct, grable didn't factor this in correctly I think. He subtracted 30^160 for each group of positions with only a color (4 times), but it's not actually 30. you have 29 piece types, and they can be either dead or a single color. So 58 + 2 (wall or blank) = 60; for 160 squares you would subtract 60^160. Am I wrong?

idk and i dont care lol

you need to start learning some math

Avatar of BoxJellyfishChess
qilp wrote:
BoxJellyfishChess wrote:

you have 29 piece types, and they can be either dead or a single color. So 58 + 2 (wall or blank) = 60; for 160 squares you would subtract 60^160. Am I wrong?

There are 28 piece types (7 classic + 21 fairy).
There are 5 colors (RBYG + dead).
28 * 5 = 140 different pieces.
140 + 2 (wall or blank) = 142 different states for each square.
142^160 ≈ 2,323459e+344 different states for 160 squares or for 4PC board.

lol no I was talking about subtracting the cases in which there is only one player. For some reason I thought there were 22 fairy pieces. So revised you would be subtracting 4 * 58^160 to remove the positions in which there is only one player.

Avatar of qilp
BoxJellyfishChess wrote:

So revised you would be subtracting 4 * 58^160 to remove the positions in which there is only one player.

Yes, everything is correct now.
The final result has been changed by 4.13%.

 

But, by the way, did you notice that

grable wrote:

I didn't try to calculate the number of playable custom positions.

Avatar of BoxJellyfishChess

but he did try to subtract all positions with only one color... did you read the whole thing? xD

Avatar of qilp

lol that is what I mean. He said he  didn't try to calculate the number of playable custom positions, but actually he did.

Avatar of BoxJellyfishChess

so he kinda went halfway... by ignoring royals and all but making sure there was more than one color?

Avatar of qilp

I'm not sure he did ignore it:

grable wrote:

You could technically change the starting position by which pieces are royals, but then you'd also have to confirm you're only including legal placements of royals. Also consider the N-Check gamerule: you could theoretically assign any number of lives to any royal, which would give infinite possibilities, so for that reason alone, I think I'll stop my calculations here.

Avatar of qilp
BoxJellyfishChess wrote:

so he kinda went halfway... 

He did actually. Didn't finish counting number of possible positions (though started, though incorrectly) and didn't count royals (though reminded about it). But I may agree, royals are more belong to game-rules than to starting position.

Avatar of ChessDemon732

Though I like math I think I have had enough of this topic