The total number of possible chess games is so large that it exceeds the number of atoms in the observable universe — by some estimates, there are more possible chess games than there are atoms in approximately a trillion trillion trillion universes like ours — and despite this near-infinite possibility space, modern chess engines can now defeat any human grandmaster who has ever lived, in any opening position they care to attempt

Space, science, and the human mind. Since 1995.

The American mathematician Claude Shannon, working at Bell Labs in 1949, sat down with a pencil and a sheet of paper and tried to estimate how many distinct games of chess could in principle be played. His method was a rough back-of-the-envelope calculation, but the result was startling enough that he included it in a paper published the following year. According to the Wikipedia reference on the Shannon number, Shannon assumed that each player faces an average of about 30 legal moves on each turn, giving roughly 30 × 30 ≈ 900 possible move pairs per turn — about 10³. He further estimated that an average game lasts about 40 such move pairs, or 80 half-moves (called "plies" in chess notation). Multiplying these together, Shannon arrived at his now-famous lower bound for the number of possible chess games: approximately 10^120, a 1 followed by 120 zeros.

The figure is large enough to be difficult to compare with anything in the physical universe. The estimated number of atoms in the observable universe is on the order of 10^80, generally cited as somewhere between 10^78 and 10^82 depending on the cosmological model. The number of possible chess games therefore exceeds the number of atoms in the observable universe not by a factor of 2 or 10 or 1,000, but by a factor of approximately 10^40 — by 40 orders of magnitude. Shannon’s number is so large that it cannot be exhausted, indexed, or stored by any physical computing device of any conceivable design. The chess board, with its 64 squares and 32 pieces, contains a possibility space that no resource in the universe could ever fully enumerate.

Why the number is so large

The reason chess explodes combinatorially despite its modest board size is the exponential growth of decision trees. After just one ply, there are 20 possible positions. After two plies, 400. After four plies — two full turns from each side — the number of possible game sequences is 197,281, or just under 200,000. After eight plies, four full turns, the figure climbs to nearly 85 billion. The growth continues unchecked, doubling and redoubling with each additional half-move, for roughly the next 72 moves of a typical game. Shannon’s 1950 calculation captured this growth using a simple exponential — about 10^3 possibilities per turn raised to the 40th power, giving 10^120. The exact number depends on assumptions about average game length and branching factor, but no matter how the assumptions are varied, the figure remains stupendous.

According to a 2019 review of game complexity estimation by mathematicians Alexander Yong and David Yong, the British mathematician G. H. Hardy at one point proposed an even larger estimate — approximately 10^(10^50), which the Yongs describe as a "second order exponential." Hardy’s number includes pathological games that have no strategic content (pieces shuffling back and forth indefinitely, for example, within the rules of the 50-move draw and threefold repetition limits). Shannon’s 10^120 is a more conservative estimate restricted to plausible game lengths and structures. Either way, the qualitative point is the same: chess sits in a possibility space that exceeds anything material in nature.

The number of distinct chess positions, as opposed to distinct chess games, is much smaller — on the order of 10^43 to 10^46 — because many different move orders can produce the same position on the board. Even this smaller figure, however, is still much larger than the atoms in any single solar system, galaxy, or galactic supercluster. Either way the chess board is measured, its mathematical depth exceeds the depth of the physical universe.

Why this hasn’t stopped the computers

The combinatorial size of chess was, for the first several decades of computing, regarded as a fundamental barrier to machine play. Shannon himself, in the same 1950 paper, noted that solving chess by brute-force enumeration was impossible and would remain so. No computer could ever examine even a meaningful fraction of the possible game tree. Chess would, the early theorists assumed, remain a problem that required something humanlike — pattern recognition, intuition, strategic understanding — rather than raw computation.

This turned out to be wrong, but not because computers became fast enough to enumerate chess. They never did, and they never will. What changed was the algorithmic approach. Modern chess engines do not attempt to examine all 10^120 possible games. They instead use techniques that drastically prune...