[tody4me]

Yes, but the size of the square does not affect the number of squares.

This post has been edited by tody4me: 23 December 2008 - 03:20 PM

[gabehabe]

I lost count, but I think it's about 115?

[GWatt]

Quote

Yes, but the size of the square does not affect the number of squares.

It does if some squares are made up of smaller squares.

This post has been edited by GWatt: 23 December 2008 - 03:41 PM

[Gloin]

I got it to 126 but I might have missed one. So if I'm wrong, I would recommend that someone guesses 127.

[gabehabe]

127

I actually think it's about 118.

[rdsrds2120]

tody4me, on 23 Dec, 2008 - 05:20 PM, said:

Yes, but the size of the square does not affect the number of squares.

You guessed 62, which is two less than the number of the small individual squares . The point I was trying to get across is that there are squares inside aquares. There is actually a formula to solve this. Lets see if anybody knows it.

And you all are getting really, really, close.

This post has been edited by rdsrds2120: 23 December 2008 - 06:34 PM

[rdsrds2120]

Nope, you are all getting dangerously close, but there is a formula or it if anybody knows it.
(Ok, I don't know what is going, on, but every time I post, I don't see it until I post another reply, but by all means, continue)

This post has been edited by rdsrds2120: 23 December 2008 - 09:43 PM

[Gloin]

If there is a formula then one factor to the formula is the placement of the figures. I mean, if you put them adjacent to eachother in a corner you get alot more squares than in the current position

[KYA]

8 x 8 - 2 = 62 <- single squares
7 x 4 - 4 = 24 <- squares with sides of 2 smaller squares
6 x 3 - 6 = 12 <-squares with sides of 3 smaller squares
2 x 2 = 4 <-squares with sides of 4 smaller squares

=102 total squares?

[rdsrds2120]

Gloin, on 24 Dec, 2008 - 04:17 AM, said:

If there is a formula then one factor to the formula is the placement of the figures. I mean, if you put them adjacent to eachother in a corner you get alot more squares than in the current position

This is right. KYA got the formula kinda close, but everybody else was closer to the answer.

This post has been edited by rdsrds2120: 24 December 2008 - 11:16 AM

[GWatt]

I count squares with side lengths:

• 62
  
• 36
  
• 18
  
• 6
  
• 1

which makes for 123 total squares.

[rdsrds2120]

your missing some 2 and 3 siders

[GWatt]

138

[rdsrds2120]

too high

[guahguahmonster]

1x1: All of them except the rooks (8x8-2 = 62)
2x2: All of them, the rooks each eliminate 4 (7x7-8=41)
3x3: All of them, the rooks each eliminate 9 (6x6-18=18)
4x4: All of them, the top rook eliminates 12 (not 16 because it's 3rd row down), the bottom rook would also eiminate 9 (would also have been 16 but it's too far in the corner), but 2 are overlaps, so (5x5-19=6) After I did that, I realized it would've been faster to just count the ones that exist instead of doing the math... oops.
5x5: Just one.
6x6: Can't do it.

It's definitely 128

EDIT: This kind of makes me want to write a program that will count the squares, given the squares of any 2 rooks (then maybe I'll expand it to any number of rooks... but that's for later)

This post has been edited by guahguahmonster: 25 December 2008 - 01:55 AM