the largest quantum computer *in the world* today has 1121 qubits.
not what i heard. Atom Computing has one at 1125 Qbits. but theyre on birdcaged N atoms not SC circuits. is Condor ?
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Well, at least you didn't say COBOL.
dodo due did. that one burst me into tears btw !
Jun 27, 2024
0
#12684
ibrust wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@12992
With present conventional computers generating the complete table base 7->8->9...->32 would take too much time and storage. A future 2100 mature quantum computer could do it much faster while in parallel and directly instead of indirectly.
Sure it will do it faster, I am aware of that, my point is it needs an algorithm. It has to know how to play the game, it has to know how to evaluate a position.
tygxc wrote:
"We don't want a set of all possible 8 man positions that could possibly lead to 7 man positions" ++ The Endgame tablebase shows the best play.
The existing tablebases we have were generated using minmax algorithms exhaustively traversing the game tree. Minimax - Wikipedia
tygxc wrote:
"the computer has to know how to play" ++ No, only positions linked by legal moves.
"it has to define playing the game" ++ It only needs a legal move generator.
The computer has to know how to play the game.
Only in the most basic sense - the rules.You cannot employ a minmax algorithm without some ability to evaluate a position.
Wrong, unless you mean to be able to detect a mate on the boardAn 8 piece position where I throw my knight away for no reason and then reach a 7 man tablebase position does not belong in the 8 man tablebase.
Confusion between positions and moves there. And it's wrong for both. Tablebases contain plenty of losing positions. And when you look up a position it can have plenty of bad moves.
If the computer doesn't have any concept of a "good move" it cannot generate any useful tablebase. There is no doubt about this.
There is no doubt that it can, and does. At generation time it does not know what a good move is, because it's working backwards to positions which have been incompletely analysed even 1 ply ahead.
If this were not the case, all the final 32-man tablebase of chess would be is just a set of all possible permutations of moves, and nothing more.
Nope. The 3 to 7 piece table base are not, and nor would any other. And it's a set of positions which have moves, not "permutations of moves".
Note that while throughout the 1098 passes of retrograde analysis, the tablebase did not know for sure what a good move was, after this pass it has enough information to play perfectly in all the positions.
The only sense it which it has to know how to play the game is that:
- it can calculate legal moves (in the reverse direction. i.e. given a position P, the retrograde step identifies all positions that could reach P in one legal move)
- it can identify if a position is mate or stalemate
The retrograde analysis progresses by first identifying all the positions with mate on the board
("-M0") then the positions where one side has mate in 1 ("M1") then the positions where one side cannot avoid being mated in 1 whatever they play ("-M1"), then the positions where a player can mate in 2 ("M2").
Each step is just 1 ply retrograde analysis. Eg for a position to be getting mated in 2, every move by a player must lead to a position where the other side has mate in 1. Only positions that satisfy this are classified as "-M2".
Eventually a step occurs where the class of positions being generated is null. I think that class in the 7-piece Syzygy tablebase is "-M549". This was reached after 1098 passes of retrograde analysis.
At this point you have a tablebase only of decisive positions - losing or winning. You can deduce that all other positions with the given pieces are drawn.
The latter deals with my observation that there are positions that can never lead to mate, stalemate or a capture, so would never appear in retrograde analysis. They are just a subset of the class of inferred drawn positions.
There is no need to explicitly store drawing positions in a tablebase. If a query fails to find the position, it is drawing. You can then look forward one ply to see the positions that can be reached and to identify the value of all of those positions by a similar lookup.
Technicalities include that all positions with a single set of material are kept together (as all moves except captures transition between them, and that lookups take into account symmetries, so that you only need one copy for up to 8 positions (left/right, up/down, black/white symmetries).
Jun 27, 2024
0
#12685
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Well, at least you didn't say COBOL.
dodo due did. that one burst me into tears btw...still laffing !
Some time in the 80's I was attracted by an ad that was giving people tests of programming aptitude for lucrative commercial programming. I liked the idea of seeing how well I did in the test, so I hopped on the tube and did a sort of exam. Apparently I aced it (could be genuine, could be really a marketing technique), but then I discovered that what they were offering was a future in COBOL applications development, at which time I said "No way, Jose". At that time it sounded like an invitation to the Stone Age.
Apparently COBOL applications were developed even up to around 2006 and there may still be legacy systems being maintained. What a horrible thought.
[I bet someone here has made a fortune programming in COBOL...]
Jun 27, 2024
0
#12686
See just think if quantum idea is billions of times faster and all this tech has come in the last hundred years what will it look like in 1000 if we are not all dead. We don't even have a basis for what they could be doing in the future maybe we all die from a comet first who knows but I'm betting if we don't it gets full solved by someone far more clever than any of us long after we die.
Jun 27, 2024
0
#12687
moxnix22 wrote:
See just think if quantum idea is billions of times faster and all this tech has come in the last hundred years what will it look like in 1000 if we are not all dead. We don't even have a basis for what they could be doing in the future maybe we all die from a comet first who knows but I'm betting if we don't it gets full solved by someone far more clever than any of us long after we die.
With current computers it would take many trillions of years to solve chess.
Yes - computers will improve and so will their programming.
Provided there's no nuclear war or some other kind of world disaster.
And if and when chess is 'solved' it won't have to be somebody 'cleverer' or even clever. It will only need the better enough hardware and better enough software and enough extra money. But all three of those are each very unlikely.
@12998
"given a position P, the retrograde step identifies all positions that could reach P in one legal move"
++ That is one reason why quantum computing is good at this: a conventional computer starts from the earlier position and generates all legal moves there are possible from it and then checks if some already are strongly solved, i.e. already are in the table base.
A quantum computer can perform this inverse operation directly:
given position P it gives all positions that could reach P in one legal move.
A quantum computer can perform this operation in parallel: given an array of positions P(k) in one operation gives all arrays of positions that could reach P(k) in one legal move.
Jun 28, 2024
0
#12689
"To analyse, like for weakly solving chess, is to select all legal moves that oppose against the game-theoretic value."
solving again means dealing with EVERY move. try again.
Jun 28, 2024
0
#12690
playerafar wrote:
moxnix22 wrote:
See just think if quantum idea is billions of times faster and all this tech has come in the last hundred years what will it look like in 1000 if we are not all dead. We don't even have a basis for what they could be doing in the future maybe we all die from a comet first who knows but I'm betting if we don't it gets full solved by someone far more clever than any of us long after we die.
With current computers it would take many trillions of years to solve chess.
Yes - computers will improve and so will their programming.
Provided there's no nuclear war or some other kind of world disaster.
And if and when chess is 'solved' it won't have to be somebody 'cleverer' or even clever. It will only need the better enough hardware and better enough software and enough extra money. But all three of those are each very unlikely.
Maybe maybe not its impossible to try and guess at what we will be capable of in 1000 years imagine asking someone in 1024 what they thought they might be able to do in 2024 they were still rocking bows and arrows and we just keep going faster I don't think its really possible to guess that far out so I wouldn't doubt it heck maybe money doesn't exist by then or its such a easy task with future tech we cant even yet imagine that its done on a mobile phone who knows. Sure the numbers are massive but I'm not sure that even matters.
Jun 28, 2024
0
#12691
"Maybe maybe not its impossible to try and guess at what we will be capable of in 1000 years"
My point is that it doesn't have to be somebody 'cleverer'.
If the hardware and software become strong enough and the money and will are there because society survives well enough and long enough - then yes the very unimportant project of completely 'solving' all of chess might be completed.
long after we die.
and ur point ?...and its negative ?
A quantum computer can perform this operation in parallel: given an array of positions P(k) in one operation gives all arrays of positions that could reach P(k) in one legal move.
Thx Ty !...its gonna be beautiful 
. were well on our way and we must face & embrace.
Jun 28, 2024
0
#12694
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
long after we die.
and ur point ?...and its negative ?
'long after we die' looks like an adverbial phrase qualifying a comment.
many comments don't have a 'point' so to speak.
They're comments rather than 'arguments'.
completely 'solving' all of chess might be completed.
not might...will. trust me. only cuz chess is a very teensie microslice of a very much larger thingy. a thingy we cant see right now cuz were staring at 64 squares. but its panoramic. more like 64000 acres. a 100 sq miles. am i right ?...maybe not. but then ima embracer. its one a the few things i like abt myself.
summa my friends like cookie & babber are statists. so convincing them is like......nvm.
well...MY point is whats so bad abt dying. were all gonna do it right ? i mean feces stops making contact w/da propeller & one makes a clean break. and fyi ?...i told april to bury me in april. lemme winter on dis gawt4saken rock. only cuz im dying one a these 10.31's (halloween nite).
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
"To analyse, like for weakly solving chess, is to select all legal moves that oppose against the game-theoretic value."
solving again means dealing with EVERY move. try again.
No need to get stuck with definitions, keep the discussion practical. If the move is trash, no need to have a calculated draw or win in that position.
It's a good approach but the problem is where to draw the line, how do we define a definitely losing move to count them out.
For example I don't believe that you disregard theoretically bad opening moves like 1. A4 - Simply because without a calculated (solved) line, we can't count out that strong but imperfect engine play might have a chance to result in a different result from that position.
Jun 28, 2024
0
#12699
Alexeivich94 wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
"To analyse, like for weakly solving chess, is to select all legal moves that oppose against the game-theoretic value."
solving again means dealing with EVERY move. try again.
No need to get stuck with definitions, keep the discussion practical. If the move is trash, no need to have a calculated draw or win in that position.
It's a good approach but the problem is where to draw the line, how do we define a definitely losing move to count them out.
For example I don't believe that you disregard theoretically bad opening moves like 1. A4 - Simply because without a calculated (solved) line, we can't count out that strong but imperfect engine play might have a chance to result in a different result from that position.
I agree regarding 1) a4.
But no white move of white's opening 20 options can be discarded.
Try a4 b5 axb.
Black's first move is horrendous. He is now down a pawn and white has an extra b-pawn that will probably be easy to protect.
That extra pawn is also cramping black's development.
Plus black has allowed his a-pawn to be isolated on a half-open file ...
plus black's horrible b5 reply allows white to half-open the a-file for his a1 rook.
White is already winning. But does he have a forced win?
The short answer is No.
Can we discard the terrible b5 reply for black?
Depends on the degree to which 'solving' is to be approximated.
Solving from the 'front' is kind of doomed. Because of the enormous permutations of 'game trees' when attempting that kind of 'solving'.
Jun 28, 2024
0
#12700
Yes, it's a "safe bet" that 1. a4 b5 is not winning for black. But it cannot be deduced that this is so without a great deal of computation, absurd as the alternative seems. Humans are not good at dealing intuitively with the difference between impossibility and extremely unlikely. Maybe there is 1 in 10^50 chance that 1. a4 b5 wins for black. It is conceivable in a pedantic sense but all our experience says to to reject it based on uncertain inductive reasoning.
Not ignoring such extremes seems more a matter of rigor and discipline than genuine doubt. But it is no more so than observing that a uniformly random natural number in the range [1, N] might be 1, regardless of how big N is. The probability is (obviously) never zero.
@12992
With present conventional computers generating the complete table base 7->8->9...->32 would take too much time and storage. A future 2100 mature quantum computer could do it much faster while in parallel and directly instead of indirectly.
Sure it will do it faster, I am aware of that, my point is it needs an algorithm. It has to know how to play the game, it has to know how to evaluate a position.
"We don't want a set of all possible 8 man positions that could possibly lead to 7 man positions" ++ The Endgame tablebase shows the best play.
The existing tablebases we have were generated using minimax algorithms exhaustively traversing the game tree. Minimax - Wikipedia
"the computer has to know how to play" ++ No, only positions linked by legal moves.
"it has to define playing the game" ++ It only needs a legal move generator.
The computer has to know how to play the game. You cannot employ a minimax algorithm without some ability to evaluate a position. An 8 piece position where I throw my knight away for no reason and then reach a 7 man tablebase position does not belong in the 8 man tablebase. If the computer doesn't have any concept of a "good move" it cannot generate any useful tablebase. There is no doubt about this.
If this were not the case, all the final 32-man tablebase of chess would be is just a set of all possible permutations of moves, and nothing more. Infact it would actually be an infinite set.