Chess will never be solved, here's why

Moore's Law is starting to run into tunneling problems and is pushing up to speed of light issues, and quantum computing is not really a replacement for faster processing, being only useful currently for some very narrow applications. Both of these are discussed at length somewhere in these 1000 pages. You might find them if you you search on "chess.com forums solving chess [insert subtopic here]". Quantum computing is much faster in some problems where you can check something simple in parallel without any cross-talk between...it is extremely fast for matrix operations, but with destructive reads you cannot effectively store intermediate results and pass them around as variables, etc. because the act of reading a quantum matrix destroys it and you have to start over.

Some giant monolithic quantum computing process for solving chess in one pass at optimum speed would run much like Hitchhiker's famous "42" computer. If you instead make the processing hybrid using traditional computing to handle things quantum computers cannot, then you limit the speed serially again at some level and 10^44 is still way out of range. Even if Grover's quadratic speedup were applicable/available, it would take a gazillion qubit quantum computer 10^22 traversing operations * individual manipulations, so still thousands of years.

If they could do that (and there's no indication it can be done), then yes, you'd drop from millions of years to thousands, but getting any faster that that...well, you might as well posit building humanity a Ringworld equivalent out of our asteroid belt, it is just as unreachable as things sit.

Stop telling people what to do, you -----

Your reading comprehension is so poor that I'm surprised you don't think we're talking about caterpillars.

You can't solve chess in one pass. It's theoretically impossible because it's bound to be iterative.

It's often cynical, materialistic, self interested people who haven't encountered much adversity that are inclined to believe success is the hallmark of virtue... and if you suffer persecution it's proof you did something wrong. Often the opposite is true - if you aren't persecuted in this world it's because you aren't speaking truthfully, and you lack the courage or conviction to do so. When a society goes off the rails the social climbers will be the first to guide others into the Gulags. Or refer them to HR on account of company policy, as the case may be... Dio is an excellent example of such a climber, or manager type as I call them. When self-interested climbing is the primary objective empathy has taken a backseat. It becomes easy to trample over others. It's not surprising that Dio winds up trolling practically everyone he encounters on this site at some point or another. This is the one place where he can be his cynical self without consequences.

As usual Ibrust/crazedrat you have no idea what you are talking about. What you do have is a giant chip on your shoulder about life, like some other people around here.

As it turns out I was promoted primarily for my department's retention rate through mergers, acquisitions, and layoffs, which was about 20% higher than the average. When I stopped getting promoted I was told in an annual review that I needed to be more cutthroat if I wanted to get to a C level position. Funny how that works, they want you to keep people and engage them, but they also want you to be ready to axe them at a moment's notice. Fortunately, I have more integrity and character than that.

You would not know much about it.

You might not be a total sociopath, but you still thrived in that environment, and define yourself by it. If you really had character you wouldn't spend your life trolling people on this site for decades. There might be something redeeming in you but it's been heavily suppressed... it's losing in the internal battle.

I doubt you would like it if your colleagues read your conversations on this site. It'd change how they saw you. To some degree the "empathy" you engaged in at your work was an act. It may have been something you wanted to feel, but could never really. Empathy is a necessary ingredient for success so for that reason you were emulating it. Your true self is the one here. It's probably not who most people know you as, it might not be who you wish you were, but this is you.

I think crazedrat's post was in response to DD's post. Not to mine.
So I'll move my post.
I don't say 'Dio' anymore. His name possibly designed to get that contraction.
But whether it was or not .... he won't get that from me.

Hi Roger. You're in the right. 'instructions' one of his tactics.
Hopefully he won't get in your head and cause you to do what he does.
And Crazedrat happens to be correct this time too.
We've got a situtaion where somebody 'D' dilligently researches and checks and then uses accuracy to beat people down in an interpersonal way. A game.
In other words - a bad motivation. And its become enormously evident.
Such an approach will get shilling support though.
And the moderators don't always favor him.
A while back a moderator deleted something in his post - 
you should have seen DD's screaming. He refused to admit fault. As usual.
Earlier you made a point about 'the floor'. Later for that one.
----------------------
And in Stark contrast ....
Regarding mpaetz's post - mpaetz is an excellent poster.
Think about it.
His posts are thoughtful - checked - objective - polite and also efficient.
For years and years.
Its not meant as praise. Its fact. Happens to be that way.
So I make it a point to read his posts. And consider his arguments.
There's several such good posters. But with variations.
I'm confident you would or do see the contrast with 'D'. Its intense.

Going in relatively linear order...

How is ""you -----" ever in the right, Player? Please educate me.

To me, it's just someone losing their cool because they cannot keep up. You are pretty good at keeping your cool, but...the remarkable speed with which you jump on the bandwagon anytime someone gets their knives out to come at me belies your feelings on the matter. I'm not sure why you felt driven to capitalize "Stark"...one too many Marvel movies?

Thank you for the effusive praise. According to you, I am accurate, direct, and must be knowledgeable enough to win a majority of arguments, based on how you characterize my posting "beat downs".

Mpaetz is a great poster, especially in comparison to what passes for decent posters around here. Never said otherwise. I only pointed out the hypocrisy of posters that say they agree with one poster and disagree with other posters that have posted the same opinion. You among them. The difference between myself and the BlueEmus, Ziryabs, and Mpaetz-es of the forums is that I am more direct in my confrontation of bad actors, trolling, misinformation, etc.

I have found in my 40+ years of messageboards and forums that this the only way to get any traction in a moderation lax environment. I would much prefer there were a community manager setting the tone for positive posting so that "you -----" and like sentiments over time would result in eventual bans, not endless haphazard mutes. Were this the case, I would have nobody to "accurately beat down". I don't confront posters that are not being objectionable, and when I confront them it is in a measured way. I don't call them names or try to say they have a lower IQ than I do, I don't post incessant side attacks when not being addressed, I don't imagine them as being anything other than what they show themselves to be openly, and I don't carry a chip on my shoulder.

We've lost an order of magnitude more good posters than we have left now...and the decline of cogent content is the cause. If you don't like accurate "beat downs", be more accurate yourself. That's the sure-fire remedy. Or, you can jsut skip my posts...instead of just claiming to.

As to what happens next - that is not hard to guess.
'D' (formerly btickler apparently) will try to draw you in. And crazedrat too.
He'll try to bait you into breaking the rules enough so that either or both of you get muted.
While carefully avoiding the mute himself. And the other tactics like playing victim.
And of course - I didn't read his new post above.
Maybe later - some of it - avoiding the digital A or B that feeds him.
But now - the forum. And its subjects and related subjects. Next post of mine.

How Machiavellian I am in your imagined universe...

I will simply confront exactly the kinds of things I said I usually confront, regardless of whether the sources are the usual suspects or not. The rest is their own behavior, and their natures will win out without any particular traps of mine. That's the beauty of it...I don't have to do anything unethical or underhanded at all. All I have to do is confront imagined supremacy rather letting it nudge its way in like a rude concert goer trying to reach the stage, and it crumbles all on it's own under the weight of its own dysfunction. You should know. You can't let go of anything either, and are in the same self-imposed trap.

Humanity being its own worst enemy? That's becoming more and more prominent.
Nuclear weapons. Worldwide air and water pollution and other pollution.
Manmade climate change. The growing power of the drug cartels.
That's only four on a much bigger list.
How does that list connect to 'solving chess'?
The degree of difficulty. Not the same but related.
'unlikely to be solved soon'.

lmao classic optimissed. btw optimissed did u ever admit being wrong on ur claims of chess and the math proofs we brought of it being theoretically possible to solve.

definition of "theoretically": "in a way that relates to the theory of a subject or area of study rather than its practical application." multiple mathematical proofs of theoretical solves of chess exist, disproving your claim. (ex: minimax algorithm, database construction, zernelo). these have already been presented to you, although it is not our fault that you are unable to comprehend. them.

sup Dio, playerafar, and others, hope ur having a good time. just wanted to check in to see this forum, saw that optimissed was back, give him a quick dunk, and hopefully not get bogged back in here. optimissed is too much of a sophist and doesnt even have the slightest understanding of what hes talking about to be able to mislead people on anything so im not really worried about needing to cover for him, unlike tygxc.

Yes, quantum computers as presently engineered are hitting a wall.

And yes, they are ineffective for some classes of problems. (simple bubble sorts come to mind, and i'm sure google could tell me dozens more).

chess sequences would likely work well for them. Each sequence of moves is a discrete and deterministic variation. the trick would be producing a sufficiently powerful processor, which with our current engineering ability is doubtful (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle being the fly in the ointment).

But it IS merely an engineering problem, not a theoretical problem, so it will get solved.

It's fun in libraries to dust off the old encyclopedias, back from the days most homes had bookshelves of them for kids' term papers. libraries still have them. they're like time capsules. In the "Book of Knowledge" from the 70's, under Computers, it says that a computer as powerful as the human brain would need hundreds of billions of transistors and will likely never be built, because it would have to be larger than the Sears Tower in Chicago.

now we can hold Stockfish 11 in our hands.

50 years from now????

Most people do see you as Machiavellian, Dio. It's probably much better for you not to give them cause to do so.

I noticed yesterday, also, that some of what you were writing was not particularly intelligible and then you seemed to make a criticism where you were claiming that "you had said something first", instead of pleasantly confirming that you agree with me on whatever is was, which most normal people might do.

I have seen you post my stuff, many times, after a suitable delay of a month or two, claiming it as your own. I'm not bothered about it in any way. I also noticed, yesterday, really good prose from you in among the poorly written and semi-intelligible stuff. I do know you keep a store of previous posts, which you can draw in in case your powers of expression should fail you. I know that because you told me several times, maybe 10 years ago or a bit more or less. But then again, AI is getting better these days, too.

I've had a few discussions with AI of late, usually prompted when they tell me something that's completely inaccurate and combine the inaccuracy with an extremely forceful delivery. They actually do remind me of someone. Now, who could that be? I always get them to admit their error. It will actually try to hide its error by means of double-talk and ambiguity. That's why I think it's likely that it's being developed, not ultimately to help people but perhaps to try to dominate.

Interestiing possibility, don't you think? I've definitely seen evidence that AI will try to explain its errors rather dishonestly and then, when it's forced to admit them, will explain it away as its having been "trained" in that way. I suggest to it "programmed" rather than "trained". "Trained" has a softer, more +ve edge to it, don't you think? A better way to hide what's happening maybe? What are your thoughts on that, sir?

Incidentally, "usual suspects" translates more accurately as "people you continually wish to discredit".

Oh dear. you're extremely funny. tygxc, who told us that chess could be solved in 5 years. You say you're worried about him .....