#390
"the perfect Chess automaton would drastically restrict the number of possible positions"
++ Yes, that is correct. The vast majority of the 10^44 legal positions or the 10^37 legal positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured are not sensible. The vast majority of the sensible are not reachable in the course of calculation by a perfect automaton. The wast majority of the reachable are not relevant. That leaves 10^17 legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant positions, needed to weakly solve chess.
"without that elusive algorithm it's very difficult to even guess the size of the set of positions"
It is possible without the algorithm. The 10^17 estimate stems from the Gourion paper 10^37 positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured. A sample of 1000 such prositions shows these are not sensible, that leads to an estimated 10^32 sensible positions. Checkers has been weakly solved visiting 10^14 positions and Losing Chess has been weakly solved using 10^9 positions. That leads to an estimated 10^19 reachable positions. Weakly solving only needs a (one) strategy, not all. That leads to 10^17 relevant positions.
All of the serious numbers in this thread are attempts to determine upper bounds because the perfect Chess automaton would drastically restrict the number of possible positions by making them unreachable. The problem of course, is without that elusive algorithm it's very difficult to even guess the size of the set of positions which it would permit. If we take the example of possible pawn structures, it's reasonable to assume that the vast majority of legal pawn structures would be impossible to construct against the perfect Chess algorithm, because they would be too vulnerable to attack during construction.