It really depends on your definition of solvable. Chess is asbolutely theoretically solvable. As for practically solvable? I think it's pretty clear that only quantum computing will bring about this possibility.
As for the games beauty and charm, it will be thoroughly unaffected. Computers already play the game at a far superior level to humans and I don't feel that has diminished the game as people play it in any way. Solving the game will be no different.
Agree with the above post. You can't take the fun out of the game.
It will of course make advanced chess and man vs. machine games completely futile ... that day isn't too far away. It will ALSO make engine-powered commentary of live games by non-titled players even more intolerable. :)
I like horror stories but not like this one!!!!!!!!!!!!
It matters only for engines vs humans or centaurs games...It is hard to belive that humans will be able to learn millions of variations....
On the bright side it gambling games with dice will be "solved" too....because quantum computers will be able to predict on wich number dice will fall - calculate all variables(spin of the dice, air resistance,friction etc.)
Um, that's not how it works. Games of chance are fundamentally unsolvable as they are incomplete information games.
Well the actual formalism of quantum mechanics says you can not asign values to all that variables at the same time. So you would "solve" gambling games if you knew every single variable. What's is wrong is the premise, you can not know every single variable
oki Edit: you can know it till some precission, but its evolution in time would be chaotic enough to make the prediction impossible (butterfly effect and so on...)
Um, that's not how it works. Games of chance are fundamentally unsolvable as they are incomplete information games.
Wrong-games with dice are not incomplete set of information.!Games with dice will be solved because there are simple forces:gravity, friction,force(of throw), drag(air resistance),hight...all those variables are going to be easy to calculate with quantum computer and give end result.
dice, flipping coin,roulette....Margin of error less than 0.5%
Cards not because that is incomplete set of information.
These are well established terms in game theory. Games of chance are games of incomplete information by definition.
In your deterministic model (which is up for debate) there may be a set of information that would allow you to calculate the outcome, however you simply can't know all of that information simultaneously.
I think it wouldn't affect chess except at the highest level where preparation will obviously go through a dramatical change. In the worst case scenario, we have chess 960.
Well the actual formalism of quantum mechanics says you can not asign values to all that variables at the same time. So you would "solve" gambling games if you knew every single variable. What's is wrong is the premise, you can not know every single variable
oki Edit: you can know it till some precission, but its evolution in time would be chaotic enough to make the prediction impossible (butterfly effect and so on...)
not definite values but could get close enough by using pribability distribution (educated guess ;) it would have 99,5% correct answers...
You edited so I edit too:) :
If we know most of starting condition we can predict outcome(how dice will fall)....camera feeding quantum pc with real time image(information) about speed rotation etc plus pre existing information (gravity etc.)... and quantum pc could calculate outcome.
Well the actual formalism of quantum mechanics says you can not asign values to all that variables at the same time. So you would "solve" gambling games if you knew every single variable. What's is wrong is the premise, you can not know every single variable
oki Edit: you can know it till some precission, but its evolution in time would be chaotic enough to make the prediction impossible (butterfly effect and so on...)
not definite values but could get close enough by using pribability distribution (educated guess ;) it would have 99,5% correct answers...
Yep, E. Lorentz also have educated initial values for making his weather predictions, but solving his equations with quite close values of this variables yieldt him to extremely different results
so distracted, I've terribly blunder my game (1 point less for TDT)
no, don't panic
i'm kidding
well I've blunder but wasn't TDT game
On that picture is einstiens quote:God does not play dice
Butterfly effect: I open my window to cool my self and my pc and some guy in spain loses his chess game ;)
We could at least make it harder for the quantum computers by eliminating the 50-move rule.
Ha ha....I was supriesd that you know that much about physic and quantum theory ;) just noticed that you are "Physicist in project"....and I am "Lawyer in making"....You caught me out of my field of expertise ;)
@Fiveofsworlds
yep, I agree what you say. We were talking about non statiscal predictions. Yep, that is have been very studied. But the probabilities is all what you can say of the event, you can not reduce it to a case. You can not predict the result of a single event. So indeed for a enough lucky person it is possible to make some money in a casino party. wow!
About the possibility of store information. A Qubit can store 2 either a 0 and/or 1, two qubits 2^2 (square). N qubits can store 2^N logical answers. 1 gigabyte is 10^9 bits. Imagine we create a hard-disk of 300 qubits. Does not seem too much, right. That makes store 2^300 complex numbers (about 10^90). You know how much big is it this number, more than atoms are there in observable universe.
Predict the future is very complicated. In 1956 In the LANL they invent a miniature of chess (6x6) so even a computer could play that
And look now how Rybka plays normal chess.
Quantum computation would mean even a bigger revolution (some people would not realize of this potentially) So i would take care about saying it is impossible to make a Nalimov tablebase with 32 pieces.
Ok. Keep this "sub rosa":
Before a major tournment some GMs arrived at a hotel. A man came to Kasparov and said, "I have solved chess!".So we all went to Kasparovs room and he played against him, and after a queer combination, the man won in twelve moves. Kasparov played again, this time with a different opening and again he lost in twelve moves!! He called in Karpov to play the man, and he too lost in twelve moves. Other GMs were called in and in turn all lost, again in twelve moves.
It was terrible and embarrassing.Whatever we did, we always lost in twelve moves. It was all over, chess has been solved......
....Luckily we found solution....
.we killed him ;).
(btw are you actually left-handed?)
I work in some issues on physics, correlated to what is known as Quantum Information Science (QIS), as it is know one of his central topics is quantum computation. While in classical computation data analysis is made trought bits whose contains a yes o non response. I think 1--yes--5Volts 0--Non--/ or so (actually i'm not sure XD)
As quantum computation uses qubits for this (whic can contain a 1 or a 0 or any possible superposition of 1 or 0) it implies a languege for the logic that can carry with calculus which may last ages of the universe to be processed within the frame of classical information
As it's already solved Chess for 3 to 6-7 pieces (Nalimov tablebases) also have been solved chess in a 3x3 board.
Thus if a quantum computer is brought to fruit. I guess there is no problem to solve chess with the 32 pieces. That is determinate if supposed both sides playing chess perfectly white initial advantage is it enough to win the game or if it is a draw.
Would this, in some mode, suppose the end of a part of what make this game that charming?