I decided to look at the problem and see if I could break it into 5x5 solutions with the ending of a solution one jump away from the corner of another.
First assumption was that 5x5 is solvable. It is and fast.
So I ran solve(0,5) and looked at the results. I drew a 10x10 numbered grid in Excel with a 5x5 numbered grid for translation. Then I just searched the results for #] (ending cells) that would be a jump away from the start of the next 5x5. (ex. for the first square, I searched for "13]".)
For reference:
10 x 10 grid 5 x 5 grid
0 1 2 3 4 | 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4
10 11 12 13 14 | 15 16 17 18 19 5 6 7 8 9
20 21 22 23 24 | 25 26 27 28 29 10 11 12 13 14
30 31 32 33 34 | 35 36 37 38 39 15 16 17 18 19
40 41 42 43 44 | 45 46 47 48 49 20 21 22 23 24
---------------+---------------
50 51 52 53 54 | 55 56 57 58 59
60 61 62 63 64 | 65 66 67 68 69
70 71 72 73 74 | 75 76 77 78 79
80 81 82 83 84 | 85 86 87 88 89
90 91 92 93 94 | 95 96 97 98 99
Here is a possible solution:
First square: [0, 15, 7, 19, 16, 1, 4, 12, 20, 23, 8, 5, 17, 2, 10, 22, 14, 11, 3, 18, 6, 9, 24, 21, 13] puts it a diagonal jump up to 5 (in 10x10) the first corner of the next 5 x 5.
Second Square: [0, 12, 24, 21, 6, 9, 17, 2, 14, 22, 7, 15, 18, 3, 11, 23, 20, 5, 8, 16, 19, 4, 1, 13, 10] puts it with last square of 25 in the 10x10, which is two jumps away from 55.
Third Square: [0, 12, 24, 21, 6, 9, 17, 5, 20, 23, 8, 16, 19, 4, 1, 13, 10, 2, 14, 11, 3, 18, 15, 7, 22] puts it with last square of 97 in the 10x10, which is two jumps away from 94.
Fourth Square can be any valid solution, because end point doesn't matter. However, the mapping of the solution from 5x5 to 10x10 is harder, as the square is starting on the opposite corner. Instead of translating, ran solve(24,5) and picked one at random: [24, 9, 6, 21, 13, 10, 2, 17, 5, 20, 23, 8, 16, 1, 4, 12, 0, 15, 18, 3, 11, 14, 22, 7, 19]
This should be possible to all do programatically, now that 5x5 solutions are know to be valid with endpoints legal moves to the next 5x5 corner. Number of 5x5 solutions was 552, which means storing the solutions for further calculation and remapping is pretty easy.
Unless I did this wrong, this gives you one possible solution (defined above 5x5 solutions as one through four respectively):
def trans5(i, col5, row5):
if i < 5: return 5 * col5 + 50 * row5 + i
if i < 10: return 5 + 5 * col5 + 50 * row5 + i
if i < 15: return 10 + 5 * col5 + 50 * row5 + i
if i < 20: return 15 + 5 * col5 + 50 * row5 + i
if i < 25: return 20 + 5 * col5 + 50 * row5 + i
>>> [trans5(i, 0, 0) for i in one] + [trans5(i, 1, 0) for i in two] + [trans5(i, 0, 1) for i in three] + [trans5(i, 1, 1) for i in four]
[0, 30, 12, 34, 31, 1, 4, 22, 40, 43, 13, 10, 32, 2, 20, 42, 24, 21, 3, 33, 11, 14, 44, 41, 23, 5, 27, 49, 46, 16, 19, 37, 7, 29, 47, 17, 35, 38, 8, 26, 48, 45, 15, 18, 36, 39, 9, 6, 28, 25, 50, 72, 94, 91, 61, 64, 82, 60, 90, 93, 63, 81, 84, 54, 51, 73, 70, 52, 74, 71, 53, 83, 80, 62, 92, 99, 69, 66, 96, 78, 75, 57, 87, 65, 95, 98, 68, 86, 56, 59, 77, 55, 85, 88, 58, 76, 79, 97, 67, 89]
Can some one double check the methodology? I think this is a valid solution and method of breaking up the problem.