In 1950 Claude Shannon estimated the game-tree complexity of chess at roughly 10¹²⁰ possible games — far more than the ~10⁸⁰ atoms often quoted for the observable universe. Positions are fewer (~10⁴⁰–10⁴⁵ in common estimates); the huge figure is about sequences of moves, including silly ones. It is a landmark in information theory, not a trading tip.
Sales rooms still borrow the feeling. “The market has infinite paths”; “our model explores more combinations than you can”; “retail cannot compute this, so trust the black box.” Complexity becomes a social shield: if the tree is astronomical, your request for a simple custody answer can be painted as naïve.
Chess engines do not ask you to top up a wallet to unlock a result. A pitch that answers every question with more branching diagrams and never with who holds the assets is using Shannon’s awe as cover. You can respect the maths and still insist on boring checks: named entity, licence where claimed, withdrawal you can confirm yourself.
Huge numbers are allowed to impress you. They are not allowed to substitute for a receipt.
If a “complex strategy” desk has already taken deposits, start at Get help. Second-wave helpers quoting more complexity: Fake recovery.
This article is for general information only. It is not legal or financial advice. Details change. If you have lost money, contact your bank or card issuer and use the routes on the help pages.