Agriculture
Microbes at the Gas Pump
Earth-Friendly Fabrics
Watering the Air
Amphibians
Tree Frogs
Salamanders
Toads
Animals
Sleep Affects a Bird's Singing
Cannibal Crickets
Sea Giants and Island Pygmies
Behavior
Taking a Spill for Science
The (kids') eyes have it
Double take
Birds
Dodos
Ducks
Quails
Chemistry and Materials
Spinning Clay into Cotton
Toxic Dirt + Avian Flu = Science Fair Success
The hottest soup in New York
Computers
Hubble trouble doubled
Fingerprint Evidence
Programming with Alice
Dinosaurs and Fossils
Middle school science adventures
A Big, Weird Dino
Downsized Dinosaurs
E Learning Jamaica
2014 GSAT Results for Jamaican Kids
Results of GSAT are in schools this week
E Learning in Jamaica WIN PRIZES and try our Fun Animated Games
Earth
Quick Quake Alerts
Plastic-munching microbes
Killer Space Rock Snuffed Out Ancient Life
Environment
A Change in Leaf Color
Catching Some Rays
Nanosponges Soak Up Pollutants
Finding the Past
Ancient Art on the Rocks
Your inner Neandertal
An Ancient Childhood
Fish
Sturgeons
Perches
Carp
Food and Nutrition
How Super Are Superfruits?
Strong Bones for Life
Yummy bugs
GSAT English Rules
Problems with Prepositions
Subject and Verb Agreement
Pronouns
GSAT Exam Preparation Jamaica
GSAT Scholarship
Tarrant High overcoming the odds
2014 GSAT Results for Jamaican Kids
GSAT Exams Jamaica Scholarships
GSAT stars reap scholarship glory
Results of GSAT are in schools this week
Access denied - Disabled boy aces GSAT
GSAT Mathematics
42,000 students will sit for the GSAT Exam in two weeks
Math is a real brain bender
Deep-space dancers
Human Body
Tapeworms and Drug Delivery
Taking the sting out of scorpion venom
Hey batter, wake up!
Invertebrates
Snails
Invertebrates
Earthworms
Mammals
African Warthogs
Cornish Rex
Minks
Parents
Children and Media
Choosing a Preschool: What to Consider
Raise a Lifelong Reader by Reading Aloud
Physics
Einstein's Skateboard
Gaining a Swift Lift
IceCube Science
Plants
Assembling the Tree of Life
Springing forward
Fast-flying fungal spores
Reptiles
Boa Constrictors
Black Mamba
Geckos
Space and Astronomy
Older Stars, New Age for the Universe
Intruder Alert: Sweeping Space for Dust
A Smashing Display
Technology and Engineering
Model Plane Flies the Atlantic
Dancing with Robots
Supersuits for Superheroes
The Parts of Speech
Problems with Prepositions
What is a Preposition?
Pronouns
Transportation
Tinkering With the Basic Bike
Flying the Hyper Skies
Where rivers run uphill
Weather
Polar Ice Feels the Heat
The Best Defense Is a Good Snow Fence
Science loses out when ice caps melt
Add your Article

Play for Science

Daniel Kunkle spent most of his time in graduate school playing with a colorful puzzle called a Rubik's Cube. And for 20 years, Jonathan Schaeffer worked on winning at checkers. The two researchers weren't goofing off. With clever computer programming, Kunkle figured out that any Rubik's Cube can be solved in 26 moves or fewer. The previous record was 27. And Schaeffer proved that if both opponents in a checkers game play flawlessly, the game will always end in a tie. Studying puzzles and games may sound like fun, but the work might also eventually help scientists solve real-world problems. Cracking the cube Each side of a Rubik's Cube is divided into nine squares, like a tic-tac-toe board. When the puzzle is solved, all nine squares (called facelets) on each side are the same color as one another. So, there's a red side, a green side, and so on. Hinges allow rows of facelets to rotate. A series of random rotations mixes up the colors. To solve the puzzle, you have to make the right series of twists to group the colors. The facelets of a Rubik's Cube can be arranged in about 43 quintillion (that's 43 with 18 zeros after it) possible ways. By hand, it can take a long time to find a solution. A computer can try every possible move and compare solutions to solve the problem much more quickly. But with so many potential arrangements (also called configurations), even the world's fastest computer would need a ridiculously long time to solve the problem. To save time, Kunkle and computer scientist Gene Cooperman of Northeastern University in Boston, Mass., looked for strategies to break the problem into smaller pieces. First, they calculated how many steps would be required to solve the puzzle using only half-turns, which send a facelet to the opposite side of the cube. They excluded quarter-turns, in which a facelet ends up on the side of the cube right next to where it began. Their study showed that only 600,000 possible configurations can be solved this way. Using a desktop computer, Kunkle discovered that all these arrangements could be solved in 13 moves or less. Puzzle pieces Next, the researchers wanted to calculate how many steps would be necessary to turn any other configuration into one of the special 600,000 presolved arrangements. That required a time-consuming search through 1.4 trillion configurations. To speed the process, Kunkle and Cooperman wrote a program for an extremely fast computer, called a supercomputer. It took the supercomputer 63 hours to do the calculations. Results showed that any configuration could be turned into one of the presolved, half-turn configurations in 16 moves or fewer. Remember that it took a maximum of 13 steps to solve one of these special configurations. In sum, the researchers concluded, any configuration could be solved in a maximum of 29 steps. That result fell shy of the record 27 steps established a year ago by another researcher. Kunkle and Cooperman noticed, however, that only about 80 million configurations (far less than 1 percent of all possibilities) actually needed more than 26 steps to reach a solution. So, the pair focused on those few, hardest arrangements. This time, instead of searching for ways to turn each tricky configuration into a special configuration, they searched through every possible way of solving each one. The effort paid off: They set a new record of 26 steps. Researchers think the absolute minimum is just 20 moves, but they have yet to find a way to prove it. The strategies that Kunkle and Cooperman used to solve the cube can be applied to other complicated problems, especially ones that require searching through lots of possibilities. Scheduling airplane flights to carry millions of people to a variety of destinations as quickly as possible is one example. Checkerboard solutions Solving the Rubik's Cube was a major feat, but Jonathan Schaeffer of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, faced an even bigger challenge: winning at checkers. On a traditional 8-square by 8-square checkerboard, each player starts with 12 pieces in his or her own back three rows. All moves are diagonal. During each turn, you slide one of your pieces a distance of one square toward your opponent's side. You can capture an enemy piece by jumping over it with one of yours into an open square. When one of your pieces reaches your opponent's side, it earns the ability to move backward too. If you can remove all enemy pieces, you win. No one had ever attempted to write a program to simulate all moves on a checkerboard. That might be because the pieces on a checkerboard can be arranged in more than 500 quintillion ways (that's a 5 with 20 zeroes after it). Compared to a Rubik's Cube, a checkerboard has 10 times as many possible configurations. Like the Rubik's researchers, Schaeffer and colleagues started with a smaller problem. They imagined two pieces left on the board at the end of a game. For every position that those two pieces could occupy, a computer program simulated every possible outcome. The program went through the same process for 3 pieces, then 4, and so on, up to 10 pieces. At that point, there were 39 trillion possibilities for where the pieces might be. Checkmate Whenever Schaeffer added a piece to the board, the time needed for calculations was 10 times as long as the time needed for the previous step. The computer was not powerful enough to continue the process. So Schaeffer started over from the beginning of a game. His program considered all possible moves and countermoves until only 10 pieces remained the board. Since he had already figured out every way the game could end once there were 10 or fewer pieces left, he was able to combine the two programs to simulate an entire game. In spite of Schaeffer's efforts to cut down time, the computers took 18 years to finish the problem. "I'm quite amazed that I had enough patience to stick with this," Schaeffer says. Like the methods Kunkle developed for the Rubik's Cube, Schaeffer's strategies can be applied to practical problems in scheduling and even in human biology. The work might also some day help a computer play a perfect game of chess, which is far more complicated than checkers. Take it from Kunkle and Schaeffer: Playing games can lead to serious science.

Play for Science
Play for Science








Designed and Powered by HBJamaica.com™