>>11854859>Any combinatorics problem that is easy to state and can probably be solved with the aid of strong computers?Not that anybody knows about. If a problem is likely solvable by letting a program run for a weekend or even a week or two, the author would've just done that before he published. Virtually all open problems, even the most minor, have been checked up to huge numbers (huge being relative, 23 can be huge due to how combinatorial problems tend to explode in number of cases).
There definitely exist "open" conjectures that could be easily resolved with a computer, but they're all going to be buried in some pre-computer or crappy-computer era paper that everybody alive has forgotten about. Nobody's going to just feed you easy solvable problems, you have to dig those up yourself.
>>11854870There are a few BOINC projects doing Latin squares, although I think they're trying to build a database of more tractable families. The number of Latin squares isn't really interesting beyond a curiousity since there is an explicit formula for counting them, it just has a stupidly bad complexity.
