The length of time its taking to tablebase 8 pieces (not even with castling and en passant included) indicates that 10 pieces will not be tablebased by the year 2100.
I don't know where you got that from but it doesn't make sense to me. It might require 10,000 times the compute and storage of the 8 piece tablebase. Moore's law (mostly by parallelism - tablebase construction is eminently suited to independent parallel computation because of the way that you have a separate tablebase for each combination of material, connected to each other by captures and promotions).
So it is reasonable to expect one move more each 15 years (if anyone is sufficiently motivated) until Moore's law breaks down for both storage and parallel computation (which is very similar to the law for "cost per compute").
Not even 'weakly tablebased' - which 7 pieces is.
There's no such thing. A tablebase is a strong solution of every position it contains.
To solve 10 pieces by 2100 - a major jump in 'ops per second' is needed for the computers.
No. If current trends continue, 2060 should suffice. The ratio of the number of positions per step is less than 100 and falling with each step.
Now T might now try to spam and claim ops per second 'doesn't matter' and that its 'nodes per second' which will further reveal his crass illogic.
The term 'quantum computers' is not going to 'get around that' either.
Quantum computing could get round it, but no-one has even sketched out how it could be done, and there is no strong reason to believe it will be possible. The present story of quantum computing is one of finding great difficulty scaling up, for fundamental physical reasons. Quantum computers are very different to normal computers.
It's worth remembering that technologies do reach road blocks they cannot surpass. The PC I bought over 10 years ago had an i5-3570k overclocked to 4.4 GHz. These days typical clock speeds on processors on turbo boost are similar (my laptop boosts to 4.6GHz), with the very fastest reaching 6.2 GHz (record liquid nitrogen overclocking is 8.2 GHz). The processors are much faster, but this is a consequence of more advanced design, partly more transistors (Intel don't provide this info any more, but indirect information suggests perhaps 10 billion transistors to the 3570k's 1.4 billion - about 100 million per square millimeter. Intel's most powerful processor is estimated to have 26 billion, with 24 cores to mine's 10).
Bottom line, I would expect an approximation to Moore's law to continue for parallel computing for a while, but the speed will tail off. Every new generation requires more expensive factories, with the current costing about $10 billion before you make the first CPU.
If it continued to 2100, our descendants could see a 12 or 13 piece tablebase.
Note: this graph only goes up to 2020. These days, the fastest progress is on increasingly parallel AI chips. The record is now 4 trillion transistors on a chip (about 80 times the largest CPU in 2020, but a different type of beast).
Moore's law is a scam. Classical computer capability is starting to level off. You can't keep compressing processor components beyond a certain amount. I doubt we'll get beyond 10 piece tablebases.
Moore's Law was never a scam - it was a non-profit making observation that turned out to accurately describe the technological progression for several decades.
It has however ended. It was over 10 years ago that it became difficult to make transistors either smaller or faster. We are stuck around 100 million transistors per square millimeter now.
But GPUs that were first driven by the requirements of gaming, now the requirements of AI are still making strides forward, with core counts and parallel processing power marching on. The latest AI chip has 6 trillion transistors if I recall (thousands of cores, each like a cheap low power processor with relatively simple functionality.
Energy is becoming a constraint. It's the sheer number of cores that makes AI machines very power hungry. The key to lowering power requirements is mainly to work with very small voltages, but there are limits without getting out the liquid nitrogen.
@14575
"Do you think 8 pieces by 2030, 9 pieces by 2050, and 10 pieces by 2100 is plausible at this rate?"
++ The rate will go up when the already commercially available quantum computers mature.
We will have 32 pieces by 2100.
Incredibly unlikely. Like lottery level unlikely. A 12-15 piece table base might be workable.