chess complexity

We have not even begun to tap into the potential of chess. In terms of opening theory, have a computer with a rating of 3000 identify all legal positions in the chess that can occur out to move 5; there should be about 1 billion or more positions. Of those, maybe 1 out of 100,000 are playable meaning the computer would evaluate them as +/=, =, or =/+. This means by move 5 there should be at least 10,000 perfectly playable new legal positions.

Now to make chess really complicated. Suppose we have a starting position with the following moves. 1.a4 a5 2.b4 b5 3.c4 c5 4.d4 d5 5.e4 e5 6.f4 f5 7.g4 g5 8.h4 h5? This is a legal "starting" position. Who is winning?

If that is not complicated enough, how about Borg chess where you fill up all the squares on the chess board with pieces and pawns, and, for example, put the White King on h1 with pawns on g1, g2, h2, f1, f2, f3, g3, h3 and fill up the board with the remaining pieces (same idea for Black with King on h8)? You could have a half dozen Queens, Rooks, Bishops and Knights of either color with the balance being pawns.

How about creating a new piece? Why not let Bishops have the properties of both a Bishop and a Knight? That way there would never be Bishops of opposite color endings because every time the Bishop moved as a Knight, it would wind up on the opposite color. This piece would have about the power of a Queen.

Chess, the most beautiful game of all times, will never be exhausted.

What about making bishops move like knights, put them on the 2 and 7 squares and change the way they look to a knight. Then change the knights to bishops by making them look that way and move that way. Then put them on the 3 and 6 squares. AWESOME

After four and one half moves (9 ply), there are nearly seven billion uniquely realizable positions, and considerably more than nine billion "positions" (diagrams in the terminology employed by François Labelle).

I agree that the game will not be exhausted in the near future.