lichess.org
Donate

Can you be so good at chess that you never lose [I mean being that dominant]

@computertrainer To say "just a different magnitude of difficulty" is an understatement. If somehow every single atom on earth was programmed to be a different chess position even then there would not be a solution to chess. Nor would there be a solution if all the atoms in the sun were used. Nor would there be a solution if all the atoms in the galaxy were used. Nor would there be a solution if each and every atom in the entire universe were labeled as a different chess position.

No human is even capable of memorizing every position after both sides have played just 3 moves. There are about 121,000,000 possibilities.
>>To say "just a different magnitude of difficulty" is an understatement." Damn right it is ! Hope you laughed..
>> "Nor would there be a solution if each and every atom in the entire universe were labeled as a different chess position." Not sure about that one, the observable universe then you are probably right..
I think there's a more prosaic paradox here. Most professional chess players only retire when they can't hack it any more at the level they want to be at, whether that's the top ten or just being able to get a prize in a big swiss tournament. So our theoretical "hyper-dominant" player would most likely play until a point at which aging weakened his mind so much that he started to lose games, and then he would probably carry on playing whilst losing games until it became unmanageable.
It is fully possible for strong correspondence player to beat stockfish.Arno Nickel beat Hydra with two wins and one draw.
#21 We have 64 squares, and each square can have one of 13 states (empty + six white piecetypes + six black piecetypes)
That makes 13 to the power of 64 positions, which is roughly 2e71, less than the number of atoms in the observable universe.
And this number includes positions with 13 white and 38 black kings.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.