Chess will never be solved, here's why

Lol, just for specifying what the type of ONE piece is you must specify in bits the color (2 possible options) + the type of piece (6 possible) > so you need 4 bits for that... at least. You can have 32 pieces on the board... so you're already at 128 bits at a minimum and we're probably underestimating, because you're probably gonna need some metadata too. You've used up 12% of the available bits and you have not even BEGUN to code anything in the chess model, or the game, or anything at all... all you have done is just given the pieces a name...

@12956

"the largest quantum computer in the world can handle 1121"
++ For now, but 80 years from now...

again, ur acting like logic works on tygxc. the rest of us arent here to try to convince tygxc, we are here so that when tygxc claims something there is somebody to immediately provide a correction for any observers so they aren't mislead.

you are free to provide your own knowledge for us to use in the pool of tygxc rebuttals though, and it is welcomed.

Again, the point is we have no evidence that quantum computing will scale in the way that regular computing has, because in quantum computing the system complexity increases exponentially every time you add a qubit. Could it happen? Perhaps... will it? Your guess is as good as mine.

(this assumes that quantum computers could run chess at an insane efficiency, of which there is no evidence for.) quantum computers take computing shortcuts because they can represent calculations as quantum proceses. there is no feasible way to represent the rules of chess as quantum processes.

@12953

"I have written a chess model myself"
++ Me too, 1978 in Fortran 4 on Hollerith Cards and running on a Siemens 4004 mainframe.

ok tygxc, what quantum process represents chess?

@12963

"Could it happen? Perhaps... will it? Your guess is as good as mine."
++ Yes, but looking back 80 years to the first computer allows to glance at the future 80 years from now.

Your last comment here is relatively meaningless, but maybe that's because you're answering a post meant for someone else.

why should quantum computing accelerate the same speed as regular computers? they are completely different technologies with completely different bottle necks. thats like saying that because cars have increased in horse power by 100x over 80 years quantum computing is going to increase in power by 100x. its completely different technology.

No, that's a ridiculous assertion to make.

Semiconductors and photolithography have unique properties that have allowed them to scale, but that scaling behavior has been very unique in engineering... quantum computers are constructed using completely different engineering methods. Infact, there's good reason to believe quantum computing will resist scaling - the logic in a quantum system has to be described by a set of quantum field equations, which are transcendental equations. So you can't just duplicate the circuit logic and shrink the size of the circuit, and expect the system to still work and produce goods results (that's how semiconductors were able to scale).

Lol. Fortran. Well, at least you didn't say COBOL.

12972

Cobol was for business, Fortran for formulas, i.e. math.
A chess program only needs a reduced instruction set: small integers and booleans.
A program to generate an 8-men endgame table base from a 7-men endgame table base only needs to code a generator of legal moves, no evaluation, no pruning.
A conventional, sequential program calculates forward:
start from an 8-men position and calculate to 7-men positions.
A quantum program, can do it in parallel and backwards:
start from a 7-men position and show what 8-men positions lead to it.

@1971

"Semiconductors and photolithography have unique properties"
++ 80 years ago there were only vacuum tubes. Then came bipolar transistors, then field effect transistors. Then came photolithography with ultraviolet lamps, then with excimer lasers...

"quantum computers are constructed using completely different engineering methods"
++ There are several technologies in the running.

"quantum computing will resist scaling" ++ Maybe, maybe not.

Anyone from that time frame knows what Fortran and COBOL were for...but that distinction is not the problem, it's the distinction between both of those vs. Assembly Language. The notion that any program meant to solve chess would be written in a compiled language is laughable. It could be worse if you proposed an interpreted language...

@12975

"any program meant to solve chess would be written in a compiled language "
Stockfish is written in C++. A legal move generator is a subset of Stockfish.

Completely irrelevant. Stockfish is not designed to solve chess, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. If and when Stockfish ever reaches a point where the next iteration is more than many weeks away, it will get rewritten in Assembly Language for a big speed improvement. It has already been done before (asmFish), but there's little point when new versions have to be cranked out quickly...which, as people have also repeatedly told you, is an indication of how far from perfection Stockfish is.

Well there's the legal move generator but then you actually need some quantum algorithm to solve the game. This is getting beyond my expertise (and everyone elses here) but I doubt that's going to be a trivial algorithm. At this point we're already out of bits anyway, so... But we can smoke to the dream and maybe it will come true before we bite the dust. But probably not.

naw dont worry tygxc doesnt need expertise all he needs to do is assert his gut feelings as facts.