I'm not even sure what exactly you are trying to solve at this point. But I don't think the solution is as "simple" as you think it would be. Considering there are a number of factors that would need to be considered.

Say you move the pawn in front of king as your first move. Then you move your king up a spot behind that pawn. That is just one possible start to a game of chess.

But then what if you move you king back to the original position? How can this be factored into some sort of equation to determine some sort of answer? This is not even considering at this point, what the player is doing across from you or number of possible moves that can be made to start the game.

there are 8 pawns and 2 knights that are the only possible pieces that can be used to make a first move. Pawns can jump 1 or 2 spot. So 8x2=16 possible moves for pawn. 2 Knights, each able for 2 possible moves to start match. 2x2= 4. 16+4=20. 20 possible moves for one side to start a chess match, this is equal for the opposite player. So 20x20= 400 possible combinations for just the start of a match where each player has made 1 move. well then, depending on which piece was moved, the next possible number of combination goes up greatly, so much so that I don't want to try and calculate it right now.

If you could maybe better define what you are trying to solve for, it would bring some clarity to this thread.

lol ok fine, can u please provide something that is understandable that can even begin to be looked at as evidence or proof. Scientific evidence to go along with the above claim.

64 cases! LOL

I hope you realize how pretentious you sound. Good lord it’s like a second grader trying to do calculus after learning addition watching you try to apply mathematical principles to simplistic ideas.

I've always found hardest part of chess being the other player I wonder how it would end up if there were two players against each other and both of them have "solved" the game

If the players advance a pawn, and move their king and only their king, there will never be checkmate.
Because a king alone can not check the opponent.

A high number of possibilities does not necessarily lead to a high complexity of the game.

if they moved the king back and forth they'd lose, that's a violation of the rules.

maybe you should learn the game before solving it.



i agree it makes it easier, but also nonapplicable. nothing on an infinite board has ANYTHING to do with a 64 sq board. mainly because without a 64 sq board there are no starting positions seemingly. so advancing into the end game and solving for mates is silly, as there is no way the game would progress there. if you have a bishop on an infinite board and it looks in trouble you'd just move it 300 squares away. the game would never advance to the end game.

you can draw some interesting conclusions about flanks, within reason, or forks, but why would you. the game in reality doesnt work like that.

i know we both agree the OPs study is nonsense

Its easy to male it so the king can't move if you have two queens.

You clearly aren't familiar with the current state of AI research and chess. You should probably do reading on the subject before you start for claiming that you are Superior.

Maybe I'm superior, and the world should start reading what I write.


"Its easy to male it so the king can't move if you have two queens."
So what???

you are still failing at communicating what you're even trying to do. when i asked, repeatedly, you just give a vague nonsensical answer.

chess isn't a game you can solve. the number of variables are too high. certain positions can be solved. but not the game itself. and by increasing the board size infinitely you've increased the variables infinitely.

Show some respect, you’re talking to the inventor of infinite chess!