But chess moves are not made of atoms....
You may well be correct, but, with all repect, your logic is flawed.
ANALOGY: I have 6 atoms in a line, only 6 atoms can fit...NO MORE. However, the number of possible ARRANGEMENTS of these atoms is 6! i.e. 6x5x4x3x2= 720. I have put 720 into 6...WOW!!!
QED
The point about numbers cheater_1 is that they ARE technically theoretical...
Your logic is VERY flawed, chess isn't matter therefore it doesn't really have mass. The number of moves in a chess match can be 10^120, it has nothing to do with matter in any shape or form. Chess moves are 'ideas' not matter. If chess were, for say, grains of sand then yes your logic could be implemented there, however chess moves are very different. Argue with that.
its just a saying, of course there are more atoms than moves THEORETICALY
but i like your explanation anyway 
well said broze. while reading the first post i was furiously thinking of what would be the best of the millions of examples that exist to contradict the first post, but you said it perfectly. nothing more needs to be said (despite how much i want to . . .)
Now, down to business. Think of our universe as a 5 gallon bucket. Let's say our universe is composed of 10^80 atoms. No matter how many things are crammed into our universe, NOTHING can exceed 10^80 (parts cannot exceed the whole). Now of course, a number can exist in EXCESS of 10^80, such as 10^80+1, but that number is THEORETICAL. I know, I know, you're all saying that I'm comparing apples to oranges because I'm comparing the # of ATOMS vs the # of MOVES. Not so.
Allow me to play DEVIL'S ADVOCATE. Cheater_1, I have a 5 gallon bucket but I can put 500,000 pins into that bucket. I just proved you wrong cheater, I put 500,000 into a 5.
Nice try. Although the number is indeed larger, you have still only have 5 GALLONS of pins.
Assuming the universe is composed of 10^80 atoms, then there is nothing that can have a value LARGER than 10^80. The number of moves may be 10^80-1, but it CANNOT exceed 10^80 under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!!! The universe, the bucket, would explode.
If chess were PROVEN to have 10^120 number of combinations, then the universe MUST have at least 10^120+1 atoms. It really is that simple.
Your logic is incorrect. Combinations do not have to be true in the universe. Most of them have never occurred before, and will probably never occur.
For example, that 10^80 of atoms are probably not all of the same element. For the sake of my time, let's say there is only hydrogen and helium--you know that there are now far over 10^80 possible combinations of those atoms. 10^160, to be exact (I'm a little rusty on permutations, might be 20^80).
You shouldn't try to become a scholar--you are a chess cheater, and I've got a new picture to commemorate you:
On closer inspection, cheater_1's argument relies more on condescension and caps-lock than physics or logic.
Theorem 1: cheater_1 is wrong.
Proof: Suppose cheater_1 is right. Then cheater_1 is talking sense. This is obviously a contradiction, Q.E.D.
But seriously, you're wrong. You are applying materialistic laws to immaterialistic things like thoughts, or the number of possible chess positions. Certainly the powerset of all atoms has more elements than there are atoms in the universe.
This thread is silly. Chess will be solved eventually, end of story.
I guess you don't know about binding energy then.
Secondly, no, not everything in the universe is composed of atoms. Not by a long shot. I dont even know where to begin with this one, it's so far off. Take an atom. An atom consists of some protons and neutrons, and some electrons. Protons and neutrons are baryons, ie bound states of 3 quarks. Electrons are leptons. So the atom comprises baryons and leptons. So, what about mesons, they are just bound states of 2 quarks. No atoms there. What about neutrinos. They are just leptons. No atoms there either. What about protons. Oops, no atoms, although they can form atoms. What about ions - close, but no cigar. What about all the elementary bosons, they definitely have nothing to do with atoms.
hmm ok, reading the rest of your post, it seems you really were just trolling. You simply must be. It's too difficult for me to believe otherwise. It's too unlikely. You must know the number of atoms is unrelated to the number of moves on a chess board. I mean you even admit in your post that it's ok. It's just theoretical - it's a game. Now if you try to physically store one game per atom, then of course you will not be able to do this. You don't have enough atoms. The universe would not explode - how dramatic of you. You would simply run out of atoms to compare your games to.
Cheater-lost you Blundered
dude cheater-lost the universe isn't composed of just atoms it's mostly empty space and atoms have quarks and all these little tiny things that compose them. what makes you think that just because there are a limited number of atoms mean there can be no higher thing. it's like saying a zoo has 3 crocodiles therefore it cannot have more than three pandas.
also chess position are not matter so they can be however large they are theoretical not tangible until someone actually sets up the position or symbolizes it. anyways just cause the board is not set up does not mean the position is NP which is the question
therefore you sound like a fool saying that 10^80 is the upper limit of all things tangible or otherwise.
anyways take a deep breath and think harder I think your wrong
"chess were PROVEN to have 10^120 number of combinations, then the universe MUST have at least 10^120+1 atoms. It really is that simple".....
Did I just waste my time reading all of this just to witness a huge blunder in thought?
I think this is why people should never skip kindergarden. We all need to learn the fundamentals of numbers before we start adding them together.
Let's all come up with different ways to support his theory. Here it goes.
"If a road is 5 miles long, there can never be more than 5 miles travelled on it or the road would explode. So for the sake of our roads, please do not turn around."
"If you dump out a 5 gallon bucket of water, no more water can fit in the 5 gallon bucket that was once filled with water or the bucket will explode."
I agree with sstteevveenn, cheater_1 is annoying but he simply can't be this stupid. HE IS TROLLING!
TOPIC CLOSED
LOL!!!
First reason I don't take you seriously, even if your argument made some sort of sense: "Now, If my marble sculpture was composed of say 10^11 atoms"
You proved that you really don't know what your talking about...6.02 x 10^23 atoms = mole. So if you have a marble (CaCO3) statue, then your statue is going to weigh like 1.66x10^-11 grams...you obviously have a good foundation of what your talking about.
Second, how many 200 digit numbers are there? Are you trying to say that there are only 10^80 200 digit numbers, and the rest are only theoretical and don't exist?? LOL
Oh and chess will be solved if quantum computers are made
for the love of God let's not think of a number that represents 10^-120 years or the universe will have to end in 1 year. that would suck
Seriously people. No one can be this stupid. Here is a very simple argument to defeat his argument:
Let us say that there are 10^150 atoms in the universe. I dont know or care if that number is correct, but let us say that there is.
There would then be 10^150!, (the ! is called factorial; it means 10^150x10^149x10^148...10^1) possible combinations of atoms in the universe. The number of "parts," if this is how he wants to define that word, excedes the whole. Thus, his argument is a logical fallacy.
There are some weird things the post of cheater_1 makes me remember:
The Banach-Tarski paradox starts with an application of the
axiom of choice. By mathematical derivations in Euclidean
space (the usual space of three or more dimensions in which
geometry is studied), the two mathematicians have shown that
a sphere of a fixed radius can be decomposed into a finite
number of parts and then put together again to form two
spheres each with the same radius as the original sphere.
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/61014.html
This cheater_1 person seems to be devoid of any set theory knowledge.....Kurt Gödel would roll over in his grave from such flawed logic.......
I think this person is just trying to get a rise out of people.....after all, look at his alias, enough said about motive in such a post (unless it was to show ignorance, then goal achieved)......
"""Back to physics. Everything in the universe is composed of atoms."""
???????????????????
wow, thanks for the lesson in modern physics ......I also assume all the possible Quantum States of a very small subset of the universe (which makes chess look trivial by comparison) are also proved to not exist mathematically using such reasoning......
(as if the material universe was relevant to the "proof" in some manner.....ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzz, no soup for you!!!!!!)
''Earth calling to baseballfan ''......''come in please''......''earth calling to baseballfan'' .....''we have a serious problem here ''...... ''we need your padlock immediately !!!''
If you have a container, say a 5 gallon bucket, no more than 5 gallons of any fluid may fit in that bucket. The total weght may change, but nothing can exist OUTSIDE the capacity of the 5 gallons. Any questions? Good.
cheater_1, it is more than possible for there to be more than 5 gallons in a 5 gallon bucket. Ever heard of surface tension? If you had exactly 5 gallons in a 5 gallon bucket, pulled out your handy dandy water pipette - lol, I feel like a crummy kid's show host - and drop say 1 mL of water on the already 5 gallons, the water molecules' hydrogen will bond together keeping the 5 gallons in the bucket. SURFACE TENSION.
First off, I APPLAUD most of chess.com users. The amount of NONSENSICAL threads has dropped significantly. It must be the badge and hat that I now wear---keeps you all in line--out of the pokey.
Alot has been said about a topic that I hold very dear, and that is the eventual SOLVING of chess. There has been some great debate here, along with many many errors. The old saying, "There are more possible chess combinations than there are atoms in the universe." is what I will now DEBUNK using common mathematics and physics principles...along with a good dose of logic, common sense, and analogy.
SCHOOL IS NOW IN SESSION
FIrst off, the sum of the parts cannot exceed the whole. Lets turn to pure common sense. If you were to sculpt a lifesize figure out of marble and that figure ended up weighing 1000 pounds, then you took a sledgehammer and demolished it, then placed all the pieces on a scale, its weight would not exceed 1000 pounds. It is a physical IMPOSSIBILITY for the parts to exceed the whole. Are you all with me students? Any questions? Good.
Another example. If you have a container, say a 5 gallon bucket, no more than 5 gallons of any fluid may fit in that bucket. The total weght may change, but nothing can exist OUTSIDE the capacity of the 5 gallons. Any questions? Good.
Now, to numbers. There are real numbers and theoretical numbers. The "number" infinity is theoretical. It does not exist except in our minds. The "number" googolplex (the number 1 followed by 10^100 zeros) is the same. It is a theoretical number. It is not assigned to anything. It denotes nothing real.
Back to physics. Everything in the universe is composed of atoms. It is found in every substance known to humanity. Now, If my marble sculpture was composed of say 10^11 atoms, then I took a sledgehammer to it, the number of atoms would not suddenly increase. That violates many laws of physics to which I will not go into. Are you all in agreement? Ok then.
Now, down to business. Think of our universe as a 5 gallon bucket. Let's say our universe is composed of 10^80 atoms. No matter how many things are crammed into our universe, NOTHING can exceed 10^80 (parts cannot exceed the whole). Now of course, a number can exist in EXCESS of 10^80, such as 10^80+1, but that number is THEORETICAL. I know, I know, you're all saying that I'm comparing apples to oranges because I'm comparing the # of ATOMS vs the # of MOVES. Not so.
Allow me to play DEVIL'S ADVOCATE. Cheater_1, I have a 5 gallon bucket but I can put 500,000 pins into that bucket. I just proved you wrong cheater, I put 500,000 into a 5.
Nice try. Although the number is indeed larger, you have still only have 5 GALLONS of pins.
Assuming the universe is composed of 10^80 atoms, then there is nothing that can have a value LARGER than 10^80. The number of moves may be 10^80-1, but it CANNOT exceed 10^80 under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!!! The universe, the bucket, would explode.
If chess were PROVEN to have 10^120 number of combinations, then the universe MUST have at least 10^120+1 atoms. It really is that simple.
Universe = 5 gallon bucket
Chess moves = water or pins or protons or frogs.
No matter how much of the above you cram into the bucket, you still only have 5 gallons of it.
Go home now children. Think about what I have taught you. Perhaps one day, with a lot of effort, you too will be as smart as me.
I think its time to RESIGN as the SHERIFF (I cleaned up this town) and assume my new post as the resident scholar.