NES Library Finished

[Tulpa | 3,494]

4 minutes ago, Estil said:

That's true for the number of possible combinations of a 52 card deck right?  I think in math terms it's called 52! (or 52x51x50x49x...)

Yeah, the 52 card deck has so many possible combinations that by the numbers every proper shuffle has produced a combination that has never come up before.

[Estil | 1,264]

And to think George Frankly is speechless about the probability of a seven digit number having no repeating digits is already "very unlikely" at six percent...but to have SIX non repeating seven digit numbers at one time...

PS: To put that 1:20,000,000 in perspective, the odds of you winning a million dollars (second prize) in Powerball or Mega Millions is ~1:12,000,000!!

Edited December 13, 2023 by Estil

[Tulpa | 3,494]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_number

"Graham's number is much larger than many other large numbers such as Skewes' number and Moser's number, both of which are in turn much larger than a googolplex. As with these, it is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume, possibly the smallest measurable space. But even the number of digits in this digital representation of Graham's number would itself be a number so large that its digital representation cannot be represented in the observable universe. Nor even can the number of digits of that number—and so forth, for a number of times far exceeding the total number of Planck volumes in the observable universe. Thus Graham's number cannot be expressed even by physical universe-scale power towers of the form "

Edited December 17, 2021 by Tulpa

[JamesRobot | 5,800]

14 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_number

"Graham's number is much larger than many other large numbers such as Skewes' number and Moser's number, both of which are in turn much larger than a googolplex. As with these, it is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume, possibly the smallest measurable space. But even the number of digits in this digital representation of Graham's number would itself be a number so large that its digital representation cannot be represented in the observable universe. Nor even can the number of digits of that number—and so forth, for a number of times far exceeding the total number of Planck volumes in the observable universe. Thus Graham's number cannot be expressed even by physical universe-scale power towers of the form "

 

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

1 hour ago, Tulpa said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_number

"Graham's number is much larger than many other large numbers such as Skewes' number and Moser's number, both of which are in turn much larger than a googolplex. As with these, it is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume, possibly the smallest measurable space. But even the number of digits in this digital representation of Graham's number would itself be a number so large that its digital representation cannot be represented in the observable universe. Nor even can the number of digits of that number—and so forth, for a number of times far exceeding the total number of Planck volumes in the observable universe. Thus Graham's number cannot be expressed even by physical universe-scale power towers of the form "

I cant believe i read that. 
 

@Crabmaster2000 congrats, I am having a hard time cleaning and testing all the games in my full set minus SE. mad props. 
 

Tell me, were no snacks while playing allowed still?

[Crabmaster2000 | 501]

8 hours ago, MrWunderful said:

I cant believe i read that. 
 

@Crabmaster2000 congrats, I am having a hard time cleaning and testing all the games in my full set minus SE. mad props. 
 

Tell me, were no snacks while playing allowed still?

The entire run was snackless!

[NESfiend | 1,515]

Congrats on a herculean feat, @Crabmaster2000. Knew you were closing in. Not sure how I misssd this thread when it popped up. The level of skill and dedication necessary to achieve this is mind blowing. And the discipline to try it without snacks!? Unprecedented. 

Hope you will keep playing in the completions tbread. And I hope having the handcuffs off so to speak will allow you to go back to games your enjoy and make contributidng more fun. Def worth mentionj g that having all this on video and access to you for strategy questions is a huge benefit to us all, so thanks! See you in the completions thread in 2022!

[Andykin Skysk8r | 49]

Did you allow yourself cheats or glitch exploitations?

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

Out of curiosity, which games were particularly not fun to clear? Any in particular you would rather handwrite out the first hundred thousand digits of Pi than replay until completion again?

[the_wizard_666 | 1,325]

On 12/16/2021 at 10:14 AM, Tulpa said:

Sure they could. It's not that strong of a chess engine. Heck, its ELO rating is about that of an expert, not even a master. It just takes an inordinate amount of time at its strongest level, but that doesn't mean it finds the best possible move every time.

On default settings I managed to beat the AI with a scholar's mate.  It's definitely a crap chess engine.  At least later iterations the AI defends against such an obvious ploy, even with the absolute easiest opponents.  The NES version is pretty crap by comparison.

On 12/15/2021 at 10:14 PM, Dr. Morbis said:

Major congrats, man!  I don't videotape my completions, just record them in a file, but my goal is similar to yours only with US unlicensed, Famicom and Euro exclusives added in as well.  I've been doing it for twenty years now and I'm only 400+ games in, so accomplishing what you did in only a decade is pretty crazy!

One question: how did you beat the Chess games?  They are the ones I'm most scared of (now that I've got the Koei library behind me) because I only count a game as beaten personally if I beat it on the highest difficulty it has to offer and/or attain the best ending.  So with Chess, winning a game against a super high level cpu algorithm seems to be all but impossible to me, so I'm wondering what exactly you did for games like Chessmaster and the like...

https://nextchessmove.com/

I'm sure you'd call that cheating, but it works.

[Crabmaster2000 | 501]

On 12/20/2021 at 2:38 PM, Andykin Skysk8r said:

Did you allow yourself cheats or glitch exploitations?

Not sure how I missed this comment, but I made sure no cheats or glitches (or third party peripherals) for any games. Originally I had used the stairs glitch in Ghostbusters, but I went back and did it legitimately because that didn't sit right with me. 

[Link | 2,710]

On 12/7/2021 at 8:32 AM, Crabmaster2000 said:

You sound like my dad watching Football

Did he ever score 4 touchdowns in a single game?

[Crabmaster2000 | 501]

10 minutes ago, Link said:

Did he ever score 4 touchdowns in a single game?

No, but he can throw a football over a mountain

[mbd39 | 2,020]

On 12/25/2021 at 12:13 PM, the_wizard_666 said:

On default settings I managed to beat the AI with a scholar's mate.  It's definitely a crap chess engine.  At least later iterations the AI defends against such an obvious ploy, even with the absolute easiest opponents.  The NES version is pretty crap by comparison.

https://nextchessmove.com/

I'm sure you'd call that cheating, but it works.

I'm thinking that a decent chess engine would require much more CPU horsepower than the NES could muster.

The most powerful special chip in a SNES cart is for the AI in Shogi 2 which is sort of like a Japanese version of chess.

[the_wizard_666 | 1,325]

3 hours ago, mbd39 said:

I'm thinking that a decent chess engine would require much more CPU horsepower than the NES could muster.

The most powerful special chip in a SNES cart is for the AI in Shogi 2 which is sort of like a Japanese version of chess.

In fairness, the default difficulty is pretty easy.  I'm at least hoping that the harder settings give a bit more of a challenge At least it ended up being an easy completion though.

[Link | 2,710]

There's a reason Deep Blue was a slightly bigger deal than any Nintendo game.

[Andykin Skysk8r | 49]

12 hours ago, Crabmaster2000 said:

Not sure how I missed this comment, but I made sure no cheats or glitches (or third party peripherals) for any games. Originally I had used the stairs glitch in Ghostbusters, but I went back and did it legitimately because that didn't sit right with me. 

I imagine Ikari Warriors was not fun lol

[Crabmaster2000 | 501]

13 hours ago, Link said:

There's a reason Deep Blue was a slightly bigger deal than any Nintendo game.

That's just not true at all. I beat Deep Blue last month and it wasn't too much trouble. Tons of harder NES games than that one. 

[Crabmaster2000 | 501]

10 hours ago, Andykin Skysk8r said:

I imagine Ikari Warriors was not fun lol

Ikari Warriors took me a couple months of consistent practice to finally get a winning run. So much memorization in that game.  

[Link | 2,710]

2 hours ago, Crabmaster2000 said:

That's just not true at all. I beat Deep Blue last month and it wasn't too much trouble. Tons of harder NES games than that one. 

Is it easier than Chessmaster? 

[final fight cd | 186]

Where the list at, brah? Did I miss it in this thread?

[Crabmaster2000 | 501]

1 hour ago, Link said:

Is it easier than Chessmaster? 

I don't know why everyone is talking about Chessmaster. That's not a hard game.

[Crabmaster2000 | 501]

1 hour ago, final fight cd said:

Where the list at, brah? Did I miss it in this thread?

Still working on it. It's not just going to be a hastily slapped together list. I've been chatting with tons of people (including game devs from back in that era) replaying games side by side, doing a ton of research and getting a lot of different perspectives on the subject. Hoping to have it ready for early next year

[Link | 2,710]

17 minutes ago, Crabmaster2000 said:

I don't know why everyone is talking about Chessmaster. That's not a hard game.

In response to talk starting with

 

On 12/16/2021 at 11:17 AM, Estil said:

I doubt even most grandmasters could beat NES or SNES Chessmaster on its max difficulty.  It's a wonder chess hasn't been "solved" by now.  

I said 

17 hours ago, Link said:

Deep Blue was a bigger deal than any Nintendo game.

and you said that's not true at all, which...  

[the_wizard_666 | 1,325]

On max difficulty, Chessmaster would take hours between moves.  It's not that it's unbeatable, it's just that most people wouldn't want to spend a week or two playing one round of chess.