How many chess games are possible? - Numberphile

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 1 лип 2024
  • Dr James Grime talking about the Shannon Number and other chess stuff.
    Squarespace (10% off): squarespace.com/numberphile
    More links & stuff in full description below ↓↓↓
    Support us on Patreon: / numberphile
    NUMBERPHILE
    Website: www.numberphile.com/
    Numberphile on Facebook: / numberphile
    Numberphile tweets: / numberphile
    Subscribe: bit.ly/Numberphile_Sub
    Numberphile is supported by the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI): bit.ly/MSRINumberphile
    Videos by Brady Haran
    Brady's videos subreddit: / bradyharan
    Brady's latest videos across all channels: www.bradyharanblog.com/
    Sign up for (occasional) emails: eepurl.com/YdjL9
    Numberphile T-Shirts: teespring.com/stores/numberphile
    Other merchandise: store.dftba.com/collections/n...
  • Наука та технологія

КОМЕНТАРІ • 4,6 тис.

  • @severed6s
    @severed6s 4 роки тому +7399

    in the distant future: "and it is as of move 11,000 we have a completely new game."
    -agadmator

  • @blue_genes
    @blue_genes 4 роки тому +9129

    this guy looks like he smokes math

    • @blue_genes
      @blue_genes 4 роки тому +216

      Alex Pătraru that was my joke

    • @kuusik100
      @kuusik100 4 роки тому +31

      No he smokes A TON OF METTHHHHHHH

    • @LuWiigi21
      @LuWiigi21 4 роки тому +102

      Alex Pătraru pls dont comment again

    • @aspectoftheyeti1232
      @aspectoftheyeti1232 4 роки тому +1

      top illin you might be onto something

    • @ColdFishMus
      @ColdFishMus 4 роки тому +14

      Alex Pătraru that, was just totally pathetic.

  • @MackyBclips
    @MackyBclips 4 роки тому +5717

    My chess skill is so low that i have most likely played games of chess that will never be repeated by another human being

    • @owenmckenzie962
      @owenmckenzie962 4 роки тому +438

      Mac Boulden actually Everyone probably has, by the middle game the game is unique usually

    • @sergifernandezmiranda1311
      @sergifernandezmiranda1311 3 роки тому +192

      Most likely. For two players to play the same game of chess is as unlikely as two people hitting the jackpot at same time

    • @mirceatim3274
      @mirceatim3274 3 роки тому +26

      @@owenmckenzie962 also in the start when he really does not study some openings

    • @owenmckenzie962
      @owenmckenzie962 3 роки тому +5

      mircea tim true

    • @apollyon1
      @apollyon1 3 роки тому +60

      It is highly unlikely that any two games of chess have ever been repeated beyond a certain amount of moves. If your chess skill were truly awful you would have been caught out by fools mate on multiple occasions! :P

  • @psilow7789
    @psilow7789 4 роки тому +1685

    7:34 "Some of those games are nonsense games, you can win in one move but you move other pieces" - I feel personally attacked!!!

    • @pierQRzt180
      @pierQRzt180 3 роки тому +21

      don't worry, the opponent will move other pieces the next move, it won't be checkmate.

    • @mikezinj
      @mikezinj 3 роки тому +36

      i bet your opponent's king doesnt :D

    • @SKyrim190
      @SKyrim190 3 роки тому +7

      @@mikezinj BURNED!

    • @mattk4758
      @mattk4758 3 роки тому +2

      haha, when he said that, i was like "So you mean most chess games?"

    • @reyanshpadhi9210
      @reyanshpadhi9210 2 роки тому +1

      Here's a co-incidence: As i was reading ur comment, the same line came up on the video

  • @adrian5b
    @adrian5b 8 років тому +2814

    That queen sacrifice at 3:40 was delicious.

  • @undera3014
    @undera3014 8 років тому +2165

    0:27 how to get extra sentences on a test

  • @user-ek4ic2ip9e
    @user-ek4ic2ip9e 3 роки тому +252

    The game being played is “The Immortal Game” Adolf Anderssen v. Lionel Kieseritzky, London 1851

    • @shreshth231
      @shreshth231 3 роки тому +25

      Agadmator has covered the game. I recognized that checkmate!

    • @dancrane3807
      @dancrane3807 3 роки тому +6

      Thanks.

    • @KedarOthort
      @KedarOthort 3 роки тому +5

      Oh is this what it is? They use it for the game in Dragon Age Inquisition, I wasn't aware it was based on another one.

    • @johncorn7905
      @johncorn7905 3 роки тому +3

      Absolutely gorgeous

    • @hector9586
      @hector9586 2 роки тому

      @@KedarOthort It's also used in the original Blade runner. I used to play a lot that opening too, it's the bishop gambit and it's a lot of fun in lower levels.

  • @orangenasa
    @orangenasa 3 роки тому +381

    3:39 Can we just appreciate this queen sacrifice

    • @Bartooc
      @Bartooc 3 роки тому +52

      It's the most famous checkmate in history. The game is called the Immortal Game and was played between Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky in 1851.

    • @chidzhustle3570
      @chidzhustle3570 3 роки тому +8

      Yeah I was watching and thinking “???” until the magic moment

    • @sarahdumby
      @sarahdumby 3 роки тому +33

      Oh no my queen

    • @ibbossb705
      @ibbossb705 3 роки тому +10

      @@sarahdumby c h e c k m a t e

    • @BrazilianImperialist
      @BrazilianImperialist Рік тому +1

      It is a very known mate pattern

  • @Terry-nr5qn
    @Terry-nr5qn 5 років тому +3373

    Move 4 there are 197000 different possible games. 90% of games I play 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6.

  • @MaxwellTornado
    @MaxwellTornado 7 років тому +3292

    ... I almost said depends on the size of the board. I'm an idiot sometimes.

    • @jsd4574
      @jsd4574 7 років тому +46

      Erik István Fejes..... gg

    • @cidkagenoh9181
      @cidkagenoh9181 7 років тому +25

      hahahaha, lol

    • @lincolnpepper816
      @lincolnpepper816 6 років тому +81

      Technically it does but there is a standard size they are using in this video.

    • @emilwallin1176
      @emilwallin1176 6 років тому +154

      no it doesnt. no matter how big/small the chess board is the number of squares are still the same

    • @753238
      @753238 6 років тому

      Same,

  • @SteveBakerIsHere
    @SteveBakerIsHere 3 роки тому +261

    The interesting question is - as the game goes on - the number of pieces goes down (as some are captured) - but the number of spaces they can move into without some obstruction INCREASES...understanding which of those two things happens to the greatest extent would inform us as to whether Shannon's number is an over-estimate or an under-estimate.

    • @salahabdalla368
      @salahabdalla368 2 роки тому +10

      We may never know most computers will crash with all of this info, and we need a super genius to code thus

    • @adiboy010
      @adiboy010 2 роки тому +6

      @darknightoftroy you sir have started to explore the code.. would love to crack the real answer with you 👍👏

    • @jeanmoise9570
      @jeanmoise9570 Рік тому +3

      Gond question

  • @dominikwagner9768
    @dominikwagner9768 2 роки тому +87

    The game he shows is the immortal game between Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky 1851, btw.

    • @rohannayak3865
      @rohannayak3865 2 роки тому +10

      Was looking for this comment LOL 😂 a true chess fan

    • @divangibran8007
      @divangibran8007 Рік тому +7

      Damn i really thought like wtf why does white just lost the Bishop and both rooks completely unprompted
      And I was gonna say the queen but then..
      Bishop e7 mate

  • @ChessNetwork
    @ChessNetwork 9 років тому +2326

    I wasn't aware of how 10^120 was guesstimated. :)
    Nice video... *shared*

    • @craigferge4702
      @craigferge4702 6 років тому +49

      What you're missing is that "possible chess games" do not exist in the physical world the same way water does. 99.9.....infinite 9s.....999% of these games will never be played and therefore do not exist in physical space, they are only theoretical possibilities. Therefore, it is possible for "possible" number chess games to exceed a number of mass in the universe

    • @leslieandclash7030
      @leslieandclash7030 6 років тому +22

      hey chessnetwork :) how did you enjoy the king's gambit as an example?

    • @armandopiloto
      @armandopiloto 6 років тому +38

      the video specified "observable universe." we have no idea how large the entirety of the universe is or if it is measurably large.

    • @TheDrexxus
      @TheDrexxus 6 років тому +24

      Yeah... There is a big difference between the theoretically infinite expanse of space vs "the observable universe". The observable universe is absolutely finite because we can only see so much of it.

    • @loganreece3263
      @loganreece3263 6 років тому +18

      "The Universe, however, is infinite and spans far and endless, and
      therefore, there is no way there are more games of Chess possible than
      atoms in the Universe"
      He said visible atoms in the universe. Also, we don't know if the Universe is infinite, do we?

  • @pizzashark7067
    @pizzashark7067 9 років тому +566

    There are only two possible chess games, actually. The one where I blunder my queen, and the kind that occurs much less frequently.

    • @alexandersamuel5638
      @alexandersamuel5638 6 років тому +2

      hahaha

    • @Fassle
      @Fassle 6 років тому +55

      I usually sacrifice my king for the win.

    • @braydenguy907
      @braydenguy907 5 років тому +1

      You sacrifice your king ummmmq

    • @ucLe-wg2wp
      @ucLe-wg2wp 5 років тому +2

      de minimis OMG, that's actually a brilliant tragedy
      lul

    • @jorriffhdhtrsegg
      @jorriffhdhtrsegg 2 роки тому

      Yeh the kind where i look three moves ahead and the other where i get bored/distracted and give my queen accidental suicide by move 5

  • @FrancoisTremblay
    @FrancoisTremblay 3 роки тому +736

    197 742 possible games after 4 moves... and only 36 of them are possible Bongcloud openings. We really need to have more opening theory.

    • @jhm8614
      @jhm8614 2 роки тому +36

      I see a man of culture

    • @okabekun844
      @okabekun844 2 роки тому +13

      Two men of culture and one of them is 1 day ago? Wonderful

    • @occultsymbols
      @occultsymbols 2 роки тому +3

      how is it only 36 games? Should be much more no?

    • @HM-yq3cn
      @HM-yq3cn 2 роки тому +3

      @@occultsymbols it s always e4 (or e3) first, so...

    • @guven3625
      @guven3625 2 роки тому +11

      Who needs theory when you can russian roulette pawns? 😎

  • @willfreese
    @willfreese Рік тому +107

    The universe of possible chess games includes some marvelous games that have never been played. Every so often, two people get together and try to find one of them.

    • @tarabinsurzo
      @tarabinsurzo Рік тому +8

      That’s a great sentence thank you sir!

    • @willfreese
      @willfreese Рік тому +3

      @@tarabinsurzo You are welcome.

    • @davidf2281
      @davidf2281 Рік тому +2

      Underrated comment

  • @nelsonnicholson6175
    @nelsonnicholson6175 6 років тому +1149

    "This was in passing."
    Or... En passant?

    • @coleyamos
      @coleyamos 4 роки тому +28

      Weird Stuff I wonder how many chess players don't understand that. 😏

    • @trevorrogers95
      @trevorrogers95 4 роки тому +41

      Coley Amos Normal people won’t. Chess nerds like us... we’ll smile.

    • @coleyamos
      @coleyamos 4 роки тому +5

      🤓

    • @trevorrogers95
      @trevorrogers95 4 роки тому +3

      Coley Amos 😂😂😂

    • @Phlebas
      @Phlebas 4 роки тому +18

      I remember learning this rule as a kid (I had a copy of some edition of Hoyle's Rules lying around the house). Unfortunately, game rules only really count when both players agree on them as I quickly found out, so I've gotten in the habit of asking people I haven't played against if they're familiar with _en passant._ If no, I explain it to them and ask if they want to have a game where it's a legal move or not. I'm happy to play either way.

  • @Cr-gf3gn
    @Cr-gf3gn 8 років тому +2786

    This guy definitely takes sugar in his tea.

  • @mynameisjeremy
    @mynameisjeremy 3 роки тому +23

    3:12 "it was only IN PASSING"
    that had to have been a purposeful choice of words

  • @nicolasterbeek3322
    @nicolasterbeek3322 4 роки тому +45

    7:33 is a pretty accurate description of my chess experience

  • @Skullmiser
    @Skullmiser 5 років тому +589

    The captions misspelled "googols" as "Googles". I blame the company.

    • @henryambrose8607
      @henryambrose8607 4 роки тому +8

      @@MetalRaydown Yes, it was. Google owns UA-cam, and UA-cam makes a net loss.

    • @chandrabitpal9151
      @chandrabitpal9151 4 роки тому +1

      I am the 69th like

    • @DaviniaHill
      @DaviniaHill 3 роки тому +1

      @@henryambrose8607 Google doesn't own UA-cam. Alphabet owns both.

    • @timboyle2784
      @timboyle2784 3 роки тому +1

      @@DaviniaHill This video was uploaded before alphabet was a thing and when google owned youtube so the captions were probably generated then

    • @Kes22497
      @Kes22497 3 роки тому +2

      "Google" the company was also a misspelling of "Googol" so we've come full circle

  • @douggale5962
    @douggale5962 8 років тому +1976

    My favourite numberphile guy.

  • @jonathanryals9934
    @jonathanryals9934 3 роки тому +29

    As the games approach the ~11,800 move limit the number of additional variations will be decreasing. So, you can count the number to the halfway point then mirror it to the end for a better estimate.

  • @Thoughtless427
    @Thoughtless427 3 роки тому +389

    So many possible games, but only one of them has ever and will ever truly *THROBBED* .

  • @GMPranav
    @GMPranav 5 років тому +5232

    Me: How many are possible games?
    Doctor Strange: 10^120
    Me: In how many I won against my dad?
    Doctor Strange: None

  • @EnerJetix
    @EnerJetix 5 років тому +1367

    10^120 is called 1 Novemtrigintillion btw.

    • @cgopie1
      @cgopie1 5 років тому +93

      I just looked this up and it's actually true, haha!

    • @ralphy1054
      @ralphy1054 5 років тому +15

      No its nontrigintillion

    • @ralphy1054
      @ralphy1054 5 років тому +121

      Nvm

    • @gonzalo4658
      @gonzalo4658 4 роки тому +3

      Tflolhahafacts

    • @ryanxin1848
      @ryanxin1848 4 роки тому +23

      r/iamverysmart

  • @sravi81
    @sravi81 2 роки тому +22

    Fun fact: The chess game numberphile showed was in fact the immortal game played by Anderssen.

  • @TimothyLockwoodinMexico
    @TimothyLockwoodinMexico 4 роки тому +257

    “If you had a computer trying to work out the the future of the game and all the legal moves and where the game would go, it would never make a move“
    So that's why Windows 7 chess lvl 10 wouldn't ever do anything

    • @Oliver-bn7jt
      @Oliver-bn7jt 4 роки тому +16

      Because computers were too slow at the time, do a virtual machine on your PC now and it might go

  • @shyamsarkar7199
    @shyamsarkar7199 5 років тому +1712

    I am a physics undergrad and i play chess casually and this is the exact question that came to my mind today. So thanks to youtube algorithm for reading my mind and recommendation.

    • @trollollollhi7992
      @trollollollhi7992 5 років тому +10

      Same, but only 1 week after this was recommended to me. Rly how?

    • @gonzalo4658
      @gonzalo4658 4 роки тому

      anapolis HA lol I love you already XD

    • @johnfast1015
      @johnfast1015 4 роки тому +1

      what are the chances? Blessings

    • @jerryteh420
      @jerryteh420 4 роки тому +3

      UA-cam read my mind many times... Really sometime i couldnt sleep thinking how UA-cam know whats in my mind.
      I am sure I din google it at all!!

    • @anonymousshitposter1743
      @anonymousshitposter1743 4 роки тому

      The odds of a single game of chess being played out of all possibilities: 10^120
      Odds of UA-cam algorithm getting something correct: 10^100000000000

  • @copythatchannel
    @copythatchannel 7 років тому +788

    This guy looks like Fred and George Weasley's long lost triplet

    • @joeyhardin5903
      @joeyhardin5903 5 років тому +1

      I thought that the first time I ever saw him

    • @ADEehrh
      @ADEehrh 5 років тому

      I was thinking; Pee wee Hurmans brother

    • @miaouew
      @miaouew 5 років тому

      Mixed with Michael Fassbender. He looks like a wimpy Fassbender.

    • @ghulamphasap.3225
      @ghulamphasap.3225 4 роки тому

      No wonder his face's familiar

    • @Kiwi94fdt
      @Kiwi94fdt 4 роки тому

      🤣🤣🤣🤣

  • @michaelempeigne3519
    @michaelempeigne3519 3 роки тому +4

    30^80 = 10^x
    80 * log 30 = x
    80 * ( log 10 + log 3 ) = x
    80 * ( 1 + log 3 ) = x
    log 3 is approximately 0.5 since sqrt 10 is approximately 3.1
    80 * ( 1 + 0.5 ) = x
    80 * 1.5 = x
    120 = x
    Therefore, 30^80 = 10^120

  • @santoshmishra121
    @santoshmishra121 4 роки тому +168

    0:29 a paper"how to program a computer to play chess" and it was on how to program a computer to play chess,
    ...
    😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣

  • @Dixavd
    @Dixavd 9 років тому +198

    Yay, I missed James!

    • @oscaar_3985
      @oscaar_3985 9 років тому +1

      Me too:')

    • @ZipplyZane
      @ZipplyZane 9 років тому +4

      Dixavd Have you subscribed to singingbanana, Dr. Grimes's UA-cam channel? It's got tons of math(s) on it.

    • @Dixavd
      @Dixavd 9 років тому +3

      ZipplyZane I have - but he uploads so infrequently... only 3 in the past 12 months! Nonetheless, every time I see him in my Subscription feed is a joy.

    • @VenomOnPC
      @VenomOnPC 6 років тому

      Don’t worry i’m back, oh wait

  • @kingscrusher
    @kingscrusher 9 років тому +735

    Thanks for this video Numberphile. I have recommended this video on my recent video comments. I have been addicted to playing chess for over 30 years!. It is a game that provides constant fascination to me. There is an old Indian proverb about the game which relates to this video a bit : "Chess is a sea in which a gnat may drink and an elephant may bathe". Cheers, K

    • @numberphile
      @numberphile  9 років тому +88

      kingscrusher many thanks - and great quote

    • @cheeseontoast14
      @cheeseontoast14 9 років тому +6

      kingscrusher Yes, KC!

    • @travispetit2410
      @travispetit2410 9 років тому +4

      OMG KC!
      Love your channel and numberphile's as well

    • @FJohnson001
      @FJohnson001 9 років тому +4

      kingscrusher Lots of chess players watching Numberphile, methinks!

    • @valentijnraw
      @valentijnraw 9 років тому +4

      kingscrusher KC my man. best chess channel on youtube

  • @aidanwotherspoon905
    @aidanwotherspoon905 3 роки тому +39

    After the first two moves (where there are already 400 possible games) you can’t get an accurate number of permutations through simple multiplication because a position where - a Rook has an open file, or a Bishop has an open diagonal across the board, or a Queen has either - has more legal moves than a position where those pieces are smothered or pinned to the King.
    And you’ll occasionally get a position where a King is in check and there is only one or two legal moves

    • @patrickheart9390
      @patrickheart9390 2 роки тому +3

      True but die to quantum mechanics it actually increases the number because the game goes on for longer . But nice thinking .

    • @cram6916
      @cram6916 Рік тому +2

      And then you get into situations where a different move order produces the same board. 1. e4, e5 2. d4, d5 produces the same board as 1. d4, d5. 2. e4, e5... or 1. d4, e5. 2 e4, d5. etc.

    • @luizfelipemedeiros7506
      @luizfelipemedeiros7506 11 місяців тому

      So, in other words, the variables are so many and entangled that it would take aliens with some crazy technology to calculate that 😅

  • @shouldersofgiants4649
    @shouldersofgiants4649 3 роки тому +1

    What an excellent video! Loved it lads

  • @jonathancoy5542
    @jonathancoy5542 7 років тому +1066

    Yet Carlsen played almost the same exact game 10 friggin times against karjakin

    • @elpocamadre9810
      @elpocamadre9810 7 років тому +77

      The speedster You have said ALMOST,but not the same.

    • @calebmauer1751
      @calebmauer1751 6 років тому +81

      Did someone say Ruy Lopez?

    • @marcozapata6984
      @marcozapata6984 5 років тому +25

      And most recently against Caruana.

    • @16thcenturynormie
      @16thcenturynormie 5 років тому +50

      @@marcozapata6984 they should become artists, they are way better at drawing

    • @matija01
      @matija01 5 років тому +5

      Thats because any playstyle can be countered.

  • @matheusalcantara9021
    @matheusalcantara9021 4 роки тому +1134

    math + chess = perfect

  • @jacoby7036
    @jacoby7036 4 роки тому

    Awesome video! It was very educational and entertaining!

  • @uncledallytv2878
    @uncledallytv2878 4 роки тому +3

    I’ve seen two of the number phone guys speak live now and they’re absolutely brilliant and completely hilarious, an honour

  • @27182818284590452354
    @27182818284590452354 9 років тому +941

    Now imagine the number of possible StarCraft games.

    • @JuancharroVlogs
      @JuancharroVlogs 9 років тому +39

      Or League of Legends :0

    • @DrEvil-uw1ju
      @DrEvil-uw1ju 9 років тому +7

      27182818284590452354e-19 Gaming is not really incredible since it was a factor for all games in that get popular is replayability

    • @JuancharroVlogs
      @JuancharroVlogs 9 років тому +77

      ***** You could say the exact same thing for board games

    • @Mcraisins851
      @Mcraisins851 9 років тому +87

      There are infinite variations of those games. Even when considering ticks for the server to register something and truncated float values that limit the number of inputs, hardware itself causes infinite variations to exist.

    • @cainfft008
      @cainfft008 9 років тому +3

      BrackenWood I wonder how many ARAM combinations there are?

  • @Norwegian733
    @Norwegian733 7 років тому +271

    He needs to prove it by taking picture of every possible different sets.

    • @quantumfool9773
      @quantumfool9773 7 років тому +53

      There are no matter enough in the universe to do it

    • @Phoenix-kv3ou
      @Phoenix-kv3ou 7 років тому +17

      Anigame He could do it with one board though
      I mean he would die first but

    • @jaysan3004
      @jaysan3004 7 років тому +1

      Sicky 😂😂

    • @sietsejohannes
      @sietsejohannes 5 років тому +15

      @@Phoenix-kv3ou Never mind the boards. There wouldn't be enough matter in the known universe to contain all the pictures.

    • @Brandespada
      @Brandespada 4 роки тому +4

      @@sietsejohannes Ok, and I would order you to check if there's any set missing.

  • @mr.admr1016
    @mr.admr1016 4 роки тому +4

    its so cool to think that i have played one of those games and nearly each time i play a different game discovering more of these possibilities

  • @TheDigiWorld
    @TheDigiWorld 2 місяці тому +1

    For everyone who might not have known, the game shown at the beginning of the video (the queen sac at 3:35 ) the game is called "Immortal Game" and it is a real game played by Adolf Anderssen vs Lionel Liezeritsky back in the era when there was no idea of chess computers and players were never afraid to make sacrifices that seem unimaginable today because apparently the computers can refute it

  • @saad1653
    @saad1653 8 років тому +305

    'In passing' I see what u did there.

  • @alexfauble3235
    @alexfauble3235 8 років тому +27

    Most games of chess would be extremely long games, as the number of possible sequences increases exponentially with the length of the game.
    Consider games where players cooperate to maximize the length of the game, by advancing pawns and/or capturing pieces only every 49.5 moves, with the minimum 8 pawn captures to allow all the pawns to pass each other and advance, these games all last 5949 moves. If we assume there's an average of 20 non-capture non-pawn non-mate moves each ply during those games, the number of possible sequences would be ~20^5949 or about (10^1.3)^5949 or about 10^7740.
    Certainly Godfrey Hardy wasn't invoking the 50 move rule when he came up with his figure. I suspect his estimate was based on an estimate of the number of possible positions constraining the length of the game through the 3 move rule. That's a lot more difficult to calculate. One article I found cited 4.1529*10^40 possible positions. This caps the number of possible sequences below 10^(10^42).

  • @cihant5438
    @cihant5438 4 роки тому +327

    Here is a more interesting question: "How many games of chess are there where neither side makes any mistakes"?

    • @jixster1566
      @jixster1566 4 роки тому +112

      One

    • @eoghan.5003
      @eoghan.5003 4 роки тому +72

      Or maybe it's none, if we accept that if you do not win, you must have made a mistake. There will always be at least one player who did not win, and therefore has made a mistake.

    • @cihant5438
      @cihant5438 4 роки тому +71

      @@eoghan.5003 No, you misunderstood. By "making a mistake" I mean make a move that changes the optimal outcome from your perspective from "winning" to "draw", or from "draw" to "losing". So if you are already losing (with best play of your opponent), then by definition you cannot "make a mistake".

    • @henryambrose8607
      @henryambrose8607 4 роки тому +57

      @@cihant5438 To get that answer, one would have to mathematically solve chess as a game, which I think is several (or many) years away. Maybe quantum computing and AI will make it possible.
      The answer could well be one, assuming that there is never a situation where multiple moves can be considered equally correct, which I'm not sure is possible, given that you can have a knight in a position such that it can move to two different squares and still be "attacking" one common square, for example.

    • @eoghan.5003
      @eoghan.5003 4 роки тому +5

      @@cihant5438 Is that not the premise I work from in my first reply? The result would be many many games where neither makes a mistake.

  • @ALF8892
    @ALF8892 2 роки тому +9

    Shanon is a goofy estimate but the number would be way higher than that because some games go 120+ moves and some positions there is closer to 40-50 legal moves. Also amazing to think about in many positions there is only 1 move that dosnt lose or get checkmated

    • @michaellautermilch9185
      @michaellautermilch9185 Рік тому +2

      Agree - "all possible games" should include billions of games having 500+ moves.
      Seriously just run a simulation of 1,000 games where legal moves are selected at random. See how many moves it takes on average to complete a game.

  • @owenivor
    @owenivor 7 років тому +135

    You had Anderssen-Kieseritzky playing in the background! (Anderssen's immortal). Nice choice of game!!

    • @iiglassfaceii6370
      @iiglassfaceii6370 7 років тому +9

      Noticed that too! Lovely!

    • @larslowther1495
      @larslowther1495 5 років тому +1

      Yeah I recognized it when kf1 was played... ingrained in my brain

  • @Fleshcut
    @Fleshcut 9 років тому +46

    And even more astonishing than the dead numbers: Magnus Carlsen (chess GM and current king of chess) said that he sometimes remembers a board and knows what to do because he played it already before.

    • @Trias805
      @Trias805 9 років тому +11

      Fleshcut He's a robot from space

    • @tgwnn
      @tgwnn 9 років тому +4

      Yago Duppel Yes that's true, it's not at all unusual. I'm a 1700 player and I also parrot a lot of theory, sometimes into the 20's! In fact one of the most amazing recent preparations was David Navarra against Radoslaw Wojtaszek in which he apparently knew the whole game up until move 25 when he moved his king to f6 as white! Move 25 per se is not impressive for a GM but bringing your king to f6 as per said preparation is.

    • @jaimesantos809
      @jaimesantos809 9 років тому +9

      Fleshcut That's because in reality chess games aren't as diverse as in theory, because there're strategies and counter-strategies in act which means the possible moves are greatly reduced. There are still many possibilities in this case and it's a great feat to recognize those patterns, but its humanly possible.

    • @Sapiensiate
      @Sapiensiate 9 років тому +6

      tgwnn A lot of GMs, I'm told, when playing weaker opponents will make slightly inferior early moves in order to get off of well known lines in the anticipation that their opponent has memorised the theory. Not sure if that is actually true, but it seems to make sense. Have you ever encountered this?

    • @Sapiensiate
      @Sapiensiate 9 років тому

      tgwnn Wow, that's an awesome answer, thanks. And grats on punishing that guy!

  • @NStripleseven
    @NStripleseven 4 роки тому +109

    0:35 ...it was about how to program a computer to play chess.
    Hmmm... The floor here is made out of floor.

  • @lilith10182
    @lilith10182 3 роки тому +6

    When calculating the number of possible chess moves, do you also consider that each board posititon can be repeated twice before the game ends by threefold repetition? It's interesting to think about how in any position, multiple repetitions can be made that result in the same board position, in some cases, you couldn't replicate all possible moves of a given piece since the board would repeat more than twice and subsequently end.

  • @Kolinnor
    @Kolinnor 8 років тому +37

    Now, the number of possible games on Hearthstone ? With 889 cards, it must be a HUGE NUMBER !!
    Oh, wait, most of them are trash.
    About 3 possibles games against secret pally.

    • @Wyti
      @Wyti 4 роки тому

      You still play Hearthstone, right?

  • @jasondoe2596
    @jasondoe2596 9 років тому +13

    Wow! I *love* both chess and Numberphile, so this was a pleasure to watch!
    I was already familiar with Claude Shannon's simplistic -yet eye-opening- calculation but I still learned a few things.
    Now Brady we want a companion Computerphile episode series(!) about all those Minimax/Negamax variants and chess engine optimisations ;)

    • @jasondoe2596
      @jasondoe2596 9 років тому

      P.S. Cool and very "romantic" King's Gambit game. Does anyone know more details about it?

    • @jasondoe2596
      @jasondoe2596 9 років тому

      ***** Oh, so that's why I was sure I had seen it somewhere! Thank you.

  • @secretunknown2782
    @secretunknown2782 3 роки тому +9

    Dr.Bishop : I have seen trillions of possibilities of chess game but we win only one time

  • @ethang8250
    @ethang8250 4 роки тому +1

    Love the play through of the OG Immortal Game, makes me want to watch agad...

  • @Infinite_Omniverse
    @Infinite_Omniverse 8 років тому +30

    I love this kind of stuff

  • @portgasd.shanks356
    @portgasd.shanks356 5 років тому +956

    Chuck Norris plays all variation twice a day

    • @miaouew
      @miaouew 5 років тому +49

      Go back to 2006, injun

    • @kinuux
      @kinuux 4 роки тому +32

      Chuck Norris wins before the game even has started

    • @dominicgallagher8930
      @dominicgallagher8930 4 роки тому +26

      But the only person capable of playing so many games is chuck norris which means he must be playing against himself which means he must have lost the most number of games in chess history.

    • @martinet1985
      @martinet1985 4 роки тому +32

      @@dominicgallagher8930 chuck wins even if he loses. such is life.

    • @robinkhoury5579
      @robinkhoury5579 4 роки тому

      Hahahahhahahahahhahaha

  • @trunghungpham9414
    @trunghungpham9414 3 роки тому +1

    Also. The example you used in the video is the Immortal game as well. Very nice!

  • @JavierArveloCruzSantana
    @JavierArveloCruzSantana 4 роки тому +1

    I love Dr. Grimes ever-present smile while talking about math.

  • @nychold
    @nychold 9 років тому +18

    @1:22 Whoa...when was the last you saw THAT variation of the King's Gambit? Jeez, what is this, 1851?

    • @nychold
      @nychold 9 років тому +4

      ***** Well, that is the Immortal Game, which took place in 1851. :)

  • @punishedwhispers1218
    @punishedwhispers1218 7 років тому +296

    Very impressive....but how many Age of Empires games are possible?

    • @Cleric775
      @Cleric775 6 років тому +14

      Oooh.

    • @Lummerbummer115
      @Lummerbummer115 6 років тому +49

      Infinite, or nigh infinite given that the maps are randomly generated and the odds for two maps of the exact same size having their trees, resources and everything in the exact same positions is already astronomically high. I'm not sure but I think medium maps are 500x500. I'm not a mathematician but I learned something in high school that was about ordered positions where one spot is selected, therefore the next spot has to be any other spot, and so on till the final spot. I can't remember if is factorial or XchooseY or XpickY (yes there's a difference b/w pick and choose). So for simplicity sake I'm just gonna pretend it's factorial. So, the amount of possible positions on this 500 by 500 board is 500*500=250000 250000! (! Is factorial) that means 250000*249999*249998...all the way down to 1. For reference 25! is 15.5 septillion.
      But let's say you only play on one custom made map that is the exact same every time and you also play as the same civilizations. Now you have to deal with game ticks, which generally are about 60hz (60 times per second). Now in order to count the amount of possible games you would need to determine the exact location of each unit, number of units, health of each unit, etc. 60 times every second for the entire game, which, from what I have seen, most competitive games last b/w 45minutes to 1h30minutes. Maybe you can say screw the tick rate for the position, given that the units cannot "land" between tiles at the end of a move. Keep in mind that I'm still missing variables such as building locations and the number of potential matches is already incalculable.
      Even if it were a chess game on a 500x500 board with no obstacles (trees, water, etc. As so in age of empires) it would already be a preposterously large number. googolplex to the power of a googolplex or something insane like that. But to add in multiple tens or hundreds of specific variables that change potentially 60 times a second (speed of creating units for example), and multiply that by say 1 hour average? ... Although infinity is not achievable, this number would be indistinguishable from it. Probably something like (Planck time of the universe to the power of the Planck length of the universe) factorial

    • @PianoGamer64
      @PianoGamer64 6 років тому +7

      Ye but the RNG is likely seeded with a single 32 or 64 bit number

    • @patrickberbon3135
      @patrickberbon3135 5 років тому +5

      Like 10 until the enemy attacks you while your still spamming villagers to gather resources because they just spammed temple units the second they got to the second age and then you quit the game.

    • @HardCorn12
      @HardCorn12 5 років тому +13

      how many "wololo's" are possible?

  • @blipmachine
    @blipmachine 4 роки тому +15

    Recorder guy said “that was the most wishy washy!” just as I thought the same.

  • @HayashiManabu
    @HayashiManabu 4 роки тому +3

    In case you were wondering, the chess scenes that were peppered throughout the video came from Adolf Anderssen’s Immortal Game. I highly recommend you watch this game. It’s a brilliant example of romantic chess.

  • @ThrawnTheater
    @ThrawnTheater 7 років тому +14

    Look at how bright his eyes are, the passion is flowing out of Dr. Grime!

  • @tohrulol
    @tohrulol 9 років тому +11

    The example game being played, by the way, is Anderssen vs Kieseritzky, 1851. Anderssen's Immortal Game. I liked his Evergreen Game better, though.

  • @thecoolring6431
    @thecoolring6431 4 роки тому +79

    3:11
    *MATHS IS THE NEW WEED*

    • @evetheeevee2977
      @evetheeevee2977 4 роки тому +4

      Close to π

    • @thecoolring6431
      @thecoolring6431 4 роки тому +1

      @@evetheeevee2977 seems Legit

    • @BianLee
      @BianLee 4 роки тому +2

      Maths is the new meth

    • @HooyahPeacock
      @HooyahPeacock 3 роки тому

      Scientifically speaking it would be the new cocaine since high functioning professions etc prefer cocaine... not weed

  • @prismarinestars7471
    @prismarinestars7471 4 роки тому

    I was just thinking about this problem yesterday, now I see there’s a numberphile video about it

  • @frankhaugen
    @frankhaugen 9 років тому +41

    My head is rejecting input after thinking about these numbers...

    • @MaxMerazMaxEmme
      @MaxMerazMaxEmme 9 років тому +14

      Your picture fits great with your comment

    • @ChessdumyTV
      @ChessdumyTV 9 років тому +5

      Max Meraz I know right?

    • @amandavo8668
      @amandavo8668 6 років тому

      Frank R. Haugen I I have been in touch to Dragonite I am so sorry you

  • @KillianDefaoite
    @KillianDefaoite 7 років тому +50

    I see you using the Immortal Game as your chess animation ;)

  • @derekliu4917
    @derekliu4917 4 роки тому +74

    this is why you should play chess. you'll almost never end up with the exact same game

    • @ottlight
      @ottlight 4 роки тому +12

      100x100x100 Rubix cube:
      You under estimate my power

    • @shezacuber6092
      @shezacuber6092 4 роки тому +1

      @@ottlight hello fellow cuber

    • @SanxBile
      @SanxBile 3 роки тому +2

      "Almost"

    • @antonpogorevici
      @antonpogorevici 3 роки тому +5

      laughs in scholar's mate

    • @skyerisma4627
      @skyerisma4627 3 роки тому +3

      Tell that to the berlin drawers

  • @branseed3479
    @branseed3479 2 роки тому +6

    I think the best way of analyzing this would be getting a chess database that analyses how many possible moves there are on average on each turn. For example, there are always 20 options on move 1. But after that it depends. If you play A3, you’ll still have 20 options on your next move but if you play E3, now your bishop and queen can move so you have 28 combinations. If you get a database that analyses every game played (which wouldn’t be even near complete but at least it’ll give a much better range) and you get a number for options for every game. In this case for example, on move two, one game will have 28 options, other will have 20, and then you take all these numbers and get an average for the move 2. Than we’ll know for example, out of all the games that lasted 100 moves, how many options did they have on average per move. Then you can get a much more precise estimate. Then you find games that lasted hundreds of moves and calculate how many options they had on average and then you can estimate the rate of which the options will lower (for the game to be that big you’ll need pieces to be captured lowering the options) even in a game with over 10 thousand moves, there’ll be many options anyways because the kings are likely going to be far from each other and that by itself means they can each move to 8 different squares. Considering you need to have at least a king and a rook or a pawn for it not to be a draw, you can have up to 14 other options just by having a rook. Totaling 22 options even with only a rook and a king.

    • @uuproverlord8324
      @uuproverlord8324 Рік тому +1

      Longest chess game is like 8k moves also losing a peice doesn't necessarily lower options either

    • @Geegs
      @Geegs 5 місяців тому

      ​@@uuproverlord8324The longest chess game possible is 5898 moves.

  • @simon.jacobs.0709
    @simon.jacobs.0709 8 років тому +32

    Now let's see him calculate the number of atoms in the observable Universe.

    • @sebastienpaquin4586
      @sebastienpaquin4586 8 років тому +48

      Its surprisingly easy to calculate, we know that a cubic meter of empty space contains on average about 6 protons and that the observable universe has a radius of 46 billion light years (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe) for a total volume of 4,0772e32 cubic light years.
      One light year equals 9.461e+15 meters, so one cubic light year equals 8.468e+47 cubic meters, giving the observable universe a total volume of 3,452573e80 cubic meters. At 6 protons per cubic meters on average, you end up with approximately 2.07e81 proton in the universe. Now since only about 75% of all matter in the universe is Hydrogen (1 proton per atom), the total number of atoms will be a little lower, so perhaps around 1.5e81.
      The thing that really struck me calculating this is that even if we add all the mass of all the stars in the universe, the number barely goes up.The problem is that although a star's density is much higher than empty space, they are so minuscule compared to the vastness of empty space filling the universe that their combines total weight is almost insignificant.
      There are about 2e11 galaxies in the universe, each containing about that many stars, giving 4e22 stars in the universe. Our sun is a little bigger than the average star in the universe but we can still use it as a reference point. With a weight of 2e30 kg and mostly made of hydrogen, we can calculate that it contains about 1.2e57 atoms. Multiply that by the number of stars in the universe (4e22) and we get 4.8e79 atoms in all the universe's stars. Although this seem very close to the number 2,07e81 we had for all the mass of empty space, adding them both together bumps that number up by 0,048e81, which is about as small as the error margin for the calculation.

    • @lilak-4741
      @lilak-4741 8 років тому +4

      It's already been calculated. :)

    • @simon.jacobs.0709
      @simon.jacobs.0709 7 років тому

      Or the telescopes we use.

    • @louisfranz1941
      @louisfranz1941 5 років тому

      i always wondered how the observable univers can be more billions light years in radius big then the universe is old because the the groving of the univers must have been faster then light or did it .. ?

  • @TheTeddyZerg
    @TheTeddyZerg 8 років тому +57

    Maths is like crack for this guy :D

  • @janmachacek4866
    @janmachacek4866 4 роки тому +2

    That Andersen's game behind is just magic

  • @glowstonelovepad9294
    @glowstonelovepad9294 Рік тому +3

    There is a maximum of 132 moves that can be made on each turn. If the 1000-turn rule is there, then the maximum number of games is 132^1000 = about 3.74913 x 10^2120

  • @kevinsandow5354
    @kevinsandow5354 6 років тому +13

    The game shown is the andersson inmortal, which I just saw in Agadmators channel. Great youtube algorithms.

  • @truth1901
    @truth1901 9 років тому +9

    I ate my chessboard, it was stale mate.
    " No it was NOT ! ! ! "
    Yes it was, check mate.

  • @szczur0192
    @szczur0192 4 роки тому +142

    Most of the games would be just a ton of blunders

    • @FreeZeon1
      @FreeZeon1 4 роки тому +22

      Szczur01 but if you think about it, every game that is not drawn contains some kind of blunder. Although I get your point - most of these games would be all silly moves

    • @hermannihietalahti4818
      @hermannihietalahti4818 4 роки тому +8

      Jonte Friedrichsen thats actually not true, otherwise when Googles alphazero played against itself (best chess entity in the world) it would have always drawn, but thats not the case.

    • @henryprickett5899
      @henryprickett5899 4 роки тому +18

      @@hermannihietalahti4818 even alphazero plays inaccuracies, otherwise it wouldn't be getting verifiably better. Chess isn't solved in closed form yet.

    • @TheVesper00
      @TheVesper00 4 роки тому +4

      @@FreeZeon1 drawn game also has a blunder (both players missed something) becouse you didn't won.. the main goal i chess is to win a game, so everything else is the blunder...

    • @masaaki14
      @masaaki14 4 роки тому +5

      @@TheVesper00 drawn games occur in 2 forms. If both players play the best move possible, it will always end in a draw. If both players fail to take advantage of blunders, mistakes and inaccuracies equally, it will also end in a draw. The only games where one wins is where one person takes better advantage of such mistakes

  • @helloeveryone1512
    @helloeveryone1512 3 роки тому +3

    I just realized that this was the Immortal game of Anderssen where he sacced both his rooks and queen for mate

  • @AhrkFinTey
    @AhrkFinTey 9 років тому +7

    6:42 The rule states that if both sides have insufficient material to do a checkmate, then it is automatically a draw.

  • @GamesFromSpace
    @GamesFromSpace 9 років тому +249

    I could never be a mathematician. The sound of markers on paper drives me nuts.

    • @gacorley
      @gacorley 9 років тому +25

      Joshua Pearce Haha, well, there's no rule that mathematicians HAVE to make Numberphile videos.

    • @wdsrocha
      @wdsrocha 9 років тому +8

      Joshua Pearce Tip: Do not use markers on paper

    • @SuperDipoleMoment
      @SuperDipoleMoment 8 років тому +8

      Joshua Pearce Your low IQ would make it pretty difficult also, lol.

    • @gacorley
      @gacorley 8 років тому +27

      Chess Master That's just mean.

    • @SuperDipoleMoment
      @SuperDipoleMoment 8 років тому +5

      George Corley No, it's not just mean. It's also factual.

  • @komstratyxspiele9613
    @komstratyxspiele9613 3 роки тому +1

    I want these numbers for our game Bollwerk 178. You have over 2000 options for the first move. It is great fun and very exiting!

  • @BrkesRBrkn
    @BrkesRBrkn Рік тому +1

    If you really think about it, there are infintite number of chess games. By repeatedly moving bishops/knights to squares with periodic checks, you could have infinite number of turns and an infinite number of possibilites just by those 4 peices

  • @General12th
    @General12th 7 років тому +59

    I like how one of Godfrey Hardy's biggest contributions to mathematics is discovering Ramanujan. Forget all his other achievements, he's famous for introducing the greatest mathematician of all time to the world!

    • @cloerenjackson3699
      @cloerenjackson3699 5 років тому

      Great comment. :)

    • @noblerkin
      @noblerkin 5 років тому +3

      You forgot Gauss and Euler.

    • @changenoways9555
      @changenoways9555 4 роки тому +4

      @@noblerkin Ramanujan did what Euler did in a shack in India at the time of Colonial Rule. I think in this instance, we have to award 1 point to the Indians

    • @skoto8219
      @skoto8219 4 роки тому +1

      I recall reading somewhere that Hardy himself said that discovering Ramanujan was his greatest contribution to mathematics.

    • @dhruva8538
      @dhruva8538 4 роки тому +1

      @@changenoways9555 yeah also India started calculus trigonometry geometry navigation etc
      Even chess invented in India
      Mostly later appropriated by west later

  • @EtzEchad
    @EtzEchad 5 років тому +4

    Back in the 70s, I wrote a program to play chess. Even if you are only looking a few moves ahead, those numbers grow incredibly fast.

  • @nomekop777
    @nomekop777 2 роки тому +1

    9:15 that's an amazing pun and I don't even think James realized it

  • @KedarOthort
    @KedarOthort 3 роки тому

    I just realized the game you're showing while talking about the moves is the game Iron Bull vs Solas play of mental chess from Dragon Age Inquisition.

  • @chengzhisheng7767
    @chengzhisheng7767 9 років тому +9

    Great video.

  • @oranmacphersonraffell8966
    @oranmacphersonraffell8966 5 років тому +15

    8902/400 is pretty similar to 197,742/8902= about 22.13ish. This suggests a pattern. If you calculated one or two more steps to get a really accurate decimal, then would the calculation be:
    197,742/8902(multiplier)x11,800!(possible number of games)
    Which equals:
    2.06274285385227894242625743373618656671452552174656780709750617838687935295439227139968546394068748x10^42927
    Or something like that.

  • @PaPapsters3294
    @PaPapsters3294 4 роки тому +4

    Wouldn’t there be an infinite amount of chess games because both players could choose to move a non-pawn piece back and forth any number of times before moving another piece to progress the game?
    Edit: Just to be clear, I wasn't aware of the threefold repetition rule when I typed this comment. I'll still leave it here though.

    • @tiago9617
      @tiago9617 4 роки тому

      It's a draw by repetition

    • @nothinggood2696
      @nothinggood2696 4 роки тому

      Not if you include the rule to not make the same moves 3 times

    • @michaelcarr9032
      @michaelcarr9032 3 роки тому

      theres draw by three fold repetition and draw by 3 move rule ie both players move same piece same place over and over 3 times

    • @brock2k1
      @brock2k1 Місяць тому

      Geez, people take things so literally. Of course you could make a game last forever, even with the three-move rule. All you have to do is repeat the same four-move cycle endlessly. Make one of the moves a check, and you also evade the 50-move rule.

  • @shyamdas6231
    @shyamdas6231 3 роки тому

    The game shown is The Immortal Game played by Anderesson.

  • @AnstonMusic
    @AnstonMusic 9 років тому +6

    It feels weird to remember that I actually met James Grime in person in Helsinki, got on stage too. =D
    He gave a great speech, although much of it was not new to me as things he discussed had been introduced on this channel.

    • @j0nthegreat
      @j0nthegreat 9 років тому

      Anston Music when was that? i was JUST in Helsinki

    • @j0nthegreat
      @j0nthegreat 9 років тому

      Anston Music cool beans. i'll probably never get to meet him

  • @MusicJamSchauspiel
    @MusicJamSchauspiel 9 років тому +15

    Now work it out for tri dimensional chess :D

  • @eisenjohnapatan7255
    @eisenjohnapatan7255 3 роки тому +4

    Wouldn’t it be less since every time you do a check move, you limit the amount of moves your enemy can make?

  • @guidovrola5231
    @guidovrola5231 3 роки тому +2

    Even if they only are very rough estimations, this number has to be hugely cut down, by the fact that a lot of variations can take you to the same position of the pieces on the board.

  • @LoganBeck11
    @LoganBeck11 5 років тому +8

    7:18 Fit the set {(1, 20), (2, 400), (3, 8902), (4, 197742)} to an exponential fit of y=0.8995*e^(3.07x) with R^2=0.9999. So with your game limit of 11800, the number of games is y=0.8995*e^(36226), which google calculator confirms is infinity.

  • @minecraftermad
    @minecraftermad 7 років тому +22

    and THIS is where quant computing would shine

  • @jasondeng7677
    @jasondeng7677 4 роки тому +6

    note: random mindless moves would probably make a game longer than two players trying to end the game as fast as possible for themselves

  • @dachijachvadze88
    @dachijachvadze88 Рік тому

    You can't know exact number from third move, because after first move (and second also, you can't block opposite sides squares on first move), every next move played has effect on next moves probable max count, meaning I can move bishop or knight on third move and numbers will change drastically starting from next move, till the end of sequence mentioned in video.