Not 361 because of symmetry (just the upper right triangle). 11*10/2 according to Gauss, so 55.
5 Likes
I think it’s also related the commonly shared fact that there are more atoms in a molecule of water than the number of stars in the solar system.
11 Likes
But if we allow symmetry, we might include antiparticles or color charges and get to something like 30, 37, or 61 particles, putting the universe clearly above the complexity of chess but still far below Go. As it should be.
4 Likes
Moved the pedantry over here.
By the way, part of my motivation for mocking the “greater than number of atoms in the universe” thing is that it’s so easy to come up with games with that kind of “complexity”. For example, any game starting with “pick a number”.
7 Likes
Just knowing that a ladder is six points wide is not enough, you need to make the effort to read it carefully… which I didn’t do in the following positions. They were not particularly hard to read, probably DDK level, I was just too lazy and somehow assumed it didn’t work.
Position 1:
Position 2:
3 Likes
Edit: (((What does it mean “6 points wide”?
Six intersections? Is it so?))) yep, I just checked that on Sensei’s library.
Anyway, case #2 doesn’t even seem a ladder to me.
Maybe I don’t understand the board position. White just did a move in both cases.
Do you mean that, without proper response by black, white could start a ladder?
1 Like
No I’m saying that in position 1 it’s Black to play, and Black can capture M8 in a ladder. Similarly, in position 2, Black can capture K8 in a ladder.
3 Likes
That’s typical of my gameplay: always focus just on the last move! 
2 Likes