From: Chip Eastham on
On Jun 2, 3:39 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 11:30 am, Craig Feinstein <cafei...(a)msn.com> wrote:
>
> > This is a fun problem. I want to see who can give the most creative
> > answer.
>
> > A checkers board has 64 squares, 32 red, 32 black. Only the black
> > squares are used in a game of checkers. So why do the checkerboard
> > manufacturers waste resources making the 32 red squares?
>
> I'm sure that Jonathan Swift must have described this problem...
>
> Every time it has been tried, the attempt has devolved into factional
> squabbles between those who favor an 8x4 layout and those who insist
> on a 4x8 layout.

I say let's split the difference and define 6x6 = 32.

--c
From: James Dolan on
in article <a7a8427c-2e76-45b6-9ee8-ed44b2471912(a)z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
craig feinstein <cafeinst(a)msn.com> wrote:

|A checkers board has 64 squares, 32 red, 32 black. Only the black
|squares are used in a game of checkers. So why do the checkerboard
|manufacturers waste resources making the 32 red squares?

so that 4 people seated around a table can simultaneously play on a
single board.


--


jdolan(a)math.ucr.edu

From: Craig Feinstein on
On Jun 3, 7:05 am, jdo...(a)math.UUCP (James Dolan) wrote:
> in article <a7a8427c-2e76-45b6-9ee8-ed44b2471...(a)z33g2000vbb.googlegroups..com>,
> craig feinstein  <cafei...(a)msn.com> wrote:
>
> |A checkers board has 64 squares, 32 red, 32 black. Only the black
> |squares are used in a game of checkers. So why do the checkerboard
> |manufacturers waste resources making the 32 red squares?
>
> so that 4 people seated around a table can simultaneously play on a
> single board.
>
> --
>
> jdo...(a)math.ucr.edu

I like this answer the best so far.

Craig