lichess.org
Donate

What if chess would be solved?

On the topic of “well this move doesn’t actually work, but your opponent is a noob, so there’s a 99% chance they fall for it...”

https://lichess.org/study/9ECMlXYE/GQBcBEZM#26

Where despite the evaluation of -2.0 after 14.Qg5?? White has a very balanced wintare of 91%

On the topic of “well this move doesn’t actually work, but your opponent is a noob, so there’s a 99% chance they fall for it...” https://lichess.org/study/9ECMlXYE/GQBcBEZM#26 Where despite the evaluation of -2.0 after 14.Qg5?? White has a very balanced wintare of 91%

@DaBassie

Great blog with great examples and descriptions.

I was planning on writing a blog about Stockfish vs 32 piece tablebase.

I abandoned it after realizing that it would be short blog. Because the answer is that there would be probably be all draws (assuming Stockfish will play the non-bad openings, no benoni only ruy lopez berlin/ italian/ qgd and openings like that).

I thought about what you said when I was writing it. About how a tablebase doesn't differentiate between multiple drawn options.

And then I thought about how a tablebase doesn't choose a move, it just shows a guaranteed outcome. So a tablebase can't play chess. A way of choosing a move would have to be added on. Thought about choosing the longest drawn line to extend the game in a drawn position. But shorter lines could have greater success.

Imagine a library with a lot of books. How many? Well, all possible books!

Here's a fun game, what book title would you choose if you had to choose one book only?

If knowledge is the capability of distinguishing gibberish from actual truths, would having all these truths stored away in dozens of closed boxes in a dark corner actually have meaning? Stored in a forgotten box or floating in the ether, what’s the difference anyway?

Here are some questions to clarify the matter:

What is knowledge?
What is 'distinguishing'?
What's the difference between gibberish and truth?

You can't answer those questions by itself.

You have to do brain science. Study the brain.

And if you have to study the brain to find those concepts, then that means the concepts are only meaningful when humans are around.

which means that the answer to

If knowledge is the capability of distinguishing gibberish from actual truths, would having all these truths stored away in dozens of closed boxes in a dark corner actually have meaning?

Is no.

@DaBassie Great blog with great examples and descriptions. I was planning on writing a blog about Stockfish vs 32 piece tablebase. I abandoned it after realizing that it would be short blog. Because the answer is that there would be probably be all draws (assuming Stockfish will play the non-bad openings, no benoni only ruy lopez berlin/ italian/ qgd and openings like that). I thought about what you said when I was writing it. About how a tablebase doesn't differentiate between multiple drawn options. And then I thought about how a tablebase doesn't choose a move, it just shows a guaranteed outcome. So a tablebase can't play chess. A way of choosing a move would have to be added on. Thought about choosing the longest drawn line to extend the game in a drawn position. But shorter lines could have greater success. >Imagine a library with a lot of books. How many? Well, all possible books! Here's a fun game, what book title would you choose if you had to choose one book only? >If knowledge is the capability of distinguishing gibberish from actual truths, would having all these truths stored away in dozens of closed boxes in a dark corner actually have meaning? Stored in a forgotten box or floating in the ether, what’s the difference anyway? Here are some questions to clarify the matter: What is knowledge? What is 'distinguishing'? What's the difference between gibberish and truth? You can't answer those questions by itself. You have to do brain science. Study the brain. And if you have to study the brain to find those concepts, then that means the concepts are only meaningful when humans are around. which means that the answer to >If knowledge is the capability of distinguishing gibberish from actual truths, would having all these truths stored away in dozens of closed boxes in a dark corner actually have meaning? Is no.

@DaBassie

You mentioned that we are currently at an 8-piece tablebase, and the speed at which we get to 9, 10, and on and on until 32 will only grow exponentially larger. How is this so? Isn’t it actually the exact opposite? Won’t going to the next piece tablebase (which is 9 in this case, as of 2/17/26) take longer, then the next one more so (and on and on)?

Somebody please explain this to me...

@DaBassie You mentioned that we are currently at an 8-piece tablebase, and the speed at which we get to 9, 10, and on and on until 32 will only grow exponentially larger. How is this so? Isn’t it actually the exact opposite? Won’t going to the next piece tablebase (which is 9 in this case, as of 2/17/26) take longer, then the next one more so (and on and on)? Somebody please explain this to me...

@saharshdevaraju said ^

@DaBassie

You mentioned that we are currently at an 8-piece tablebase, and the speed at which we get to 9, 10, and on and on until 32 will only grow exponentially larger. How is this so? Isn’t it actually the exact opposite? Won’t going to the next piece tablebase (which is 9 in this case, as of 2/17/26) take longer, then the next one more so (and on and on)?

Somebody please explain this to me...

You're right that it wouldn't get faster.

Maybe they mean that the progress in solving chess gets better. Since with each added pieces, the amount we know grows exponentially.

They say:

The process will therefore only go faster and faster the further we get.

If the 'process' is solving chess, then they may mean that the process progresses more as we increase the number of pieces in the tablebase.

But the word 'faster' isn't accurate, the proper way would be that as we increase the number of pieces in the tablebase, our progress in solving chess increases more and more.

A smart person told me it works like this.

This phrase might be sarcastic, so maybe they were making a joke?

@saharshdevaraju said [^](/forum/redirect/post/oBJiu2uB) > @DaBassie > > You mentioned that we are currently at an 8-piece tablebase, and the speed at which we get to 9, 10, and on and on until 32 will only grow exponentially larger. How is this so? Isn’t it actually the exact opposite? Won’t going to the next piece tablebase (which is 9 in this case, as of 2/17/26) take longer, then the next one more so (and on and on)? > > Somebody please explain this to me... You're right that it wouldn't get faster. Maybe they mean that the progress in solving chess gets better. Since with each added pieces, the amount we know grows exponentially. They say: >The process will therefore only go faster and faster the further we get. If the 'process' is solving chess, then they may mean that the process progresses more as we increase the number of pieces in the tablebase. But the word 'faster' isn't accurate, the proper way would be that as we increase the number of pieces in the tablebase, our progress in solving chess increases more and more. >*A smart person told me it works like this.* This phrase might be sarcastic, so maybe they were making a joke?

@saharshdevaraju said ^

@RuyLopez1000

Perhaps...

You're right that it wouldn't get faster.

@saharshdevaraju said [^](/forum/redirect/post/e5QJd062) > @RuyLopez1000 > > Perhaps... You're right that it wouldn't get faster.

@saharshdevaraju said ^

You mentioned that we are currently at an 8-piece tablebase, and the speed at which we get to 9, 10, and on and on until 32 will only grow exponentially larger. How is this so? Isn’t it actually the exact opposite?

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

A smart person told me it works like this.

This phrase might be sarcastic, so maybe they were making a joke?

Yes, it's sarcastic. DaBassie's post are pretty humorous, just look at his recent work https://lichess.org/@/DaBassie/blog/chess-boards-rotated-by-90-degrees-and-occurrences-in-other-sports/Mm9pycAI

@saharshdevaraju said [^](/forum/redirect/post/oBJiu2uB) > You mentioned that we are currently at an 8-piece tablebase, and the speed at which we get to 9, 10, and on and on until 32 will only grow exponentially larger. How is this so? Isn’t it actually the exact opposite? @RuyLopez1000 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/mYU88eXn) > >*A smart person told me it works like this.* > > This phrase might be sarcastic, so maybe they were making a joke? Yes, it's sarcastic. DaBassie's post are pretty humorous, just look at his recent work https://lichess.org/@/DaBassie/blog/chess-boards-rotated-by-90-degrees-and-occurrences-in-other-sports/Mm9pycAI

@saharshdevaraju said ^

@DaBassie

You mentioned that we are currently at an 8-piece tablebase, and the speed at which we get to 9, 10, and on and on until 32 will only grow exponentially larger. How is this so? Isn’t it actually the exact opposite? Won’t going to the next piece tablebase (which is 9 in this case, as of 2/17/26) take longer, then the next one more so (and on and on)?

Somebody please explain this to me...

Yeah, I know sarcasm always gets confusing in written form.

But it has a function too... I'm a teacher and just standing in front of students telling facts, gets pretty monotone. Just very confidently throwing in some obviously wrong statements keeps the students sharp. It enhances critical thinking. I don't want that people just think they can assume everything I say is correct. I'm also just a random person on the Internet, I make mistakes too.

And sometimes people just get totally confused... Then I have gone too far lol

Tnx for the comment though. I'm 100% sure you're not the only one that got confused.

@saharshdevaraju said [^](/forum/redirect/post/oBJiu2uB) > @DaBassie > > You mentioned that we are currently at an 8-piece tablebase, and the speed at which we get to 9, 10, and on and on until 32 will only grow exponentially larger. How is this so? Isn’t it actually the exact opposite? Won’t going to the next piece tablebase (which is 9 in this case, as of 2/17/26) take longer, then the next one more so (and on and on)? > > Somebody please explain this to me... Yeah, I know sarcasm always gets confusing in written form. But it has a function too... I'm a teacher and just standing in front of students telling facts, gets pretty monotone. Just very confidently throwing in some obviously wrong statements keeps the students sharp. It enhances critical thinking. I don't want that people just think they can assume everything I say is correct. I'm also just a random person on the Internet, I make mistakes too. And sometimes people just get totally confused... Then I have gone too far lol Tnx for the comment though. I'm 100% sure you're not the only one that got confused.