No that's not it. The two body problem has a closed, analytical solution, the three body one doesn't, so you need to simulate it. It's a fundamentally different approach.

That's not really the issue. The three body problem does have an analytical solution in the form of a power series, but the problem is that it converges so slowly to be of any practical use.

It is though, if you don’t have a closed form solution you need to use an iterative process to calculate the positions, meaning errors will accrue over time. For a closed form solution that wouldn’t be the case.

Thanks for mentioning the existence of an analytical solution at all though, I wasn't aware of that.

> meaning errors will accrue over time

This is not universally true. Error behavior is a function of the particular problem, the algorithm used to approximate its solution, and the properties of input data. A large subtopic of numerical analysis is concerned with this kind of stuff. See [1] or [2] to get a flavor.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_stability

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lax_equivalence_theorem

There are iterative methods/systems that stabilize over time. For example, symplectic integrators on tame problems oscillate lightly around the true energy of the system over time. The issue here is the properties of the underlying problem, not the set of solution methods.

Both of you are correct.

arent eclipses three body problems?

For all practical purposes eclipses are two two-body problems ... Sun vs Earth-Moon pair, and Earth vs Moon. The scale of the Sun is so vastly larger and distances so great from sun to earth there's no need to do 3-body.

If the three had roughly the same mass would be different story.