quantum computer. will it hurt chess theory?

This is what QCL provides you:

• Data types
  • Quantum - qureg, quvoid, quconst, quscratch, qucond
  • Classical - int, real, complex, boolean, string, vector, matrix, tensor
• Function types
  • qufunct - Pseudo-classic operators. Can only change the permutation of basic states.
  • operator - General unitary operators. Can change the amplitude.
  • procedure - Can call measure, print, and dump inside this function. This function is non-invertible.
• Built-in functions
  • Quantum
    • qufunct - Fanout, Swap, Perm2, Perm4, Perm8, Not, CNot
    • operator - Matrix2x2, Matrix4x4, Matrix8x8, Rot, Mix, H, CPhase, SqrtNot, X, Y, Z, S, T
    • procedure - measure, dump, reset
  • Classical
    • Arithmetic - sin, cos, tan, log, sqrt, ...
    • Complex - Re, Im, conj

...now go ahead and write a subroutine that evaluates a chess position from that matrix-heavy instruction set.  We'll be waiting.  Don't forget that the evaluation must be completely done *inside* the subroutine, and callouts or temporary measurements or even variable storage for retrieval later actually result in decoherence and loss of the whole matrix. 

P.S. I would have given you an instruction set for Silq, but there isn't one published that I could find, just a PDF abstract about it that compares it to Q# (Microsoft's quantum programming language) and says it's better without showing why.  The abstract *does* talk about "uncomputation" and the massive difficulty of working with quantum computers where taking any intermediate measurement of any kind during processing destroys the whole operation being performed.

Quantum computers are going to be excellent at solving massively parallel discrete problem sets.  Tablebases and position evaluations are not going to qualify without some currently non-existent breakthrough.  Even if you could "evaluate" a chess position by simply creating an 8x8 matrix and rotating and flipping bits, you cannot store the results in any intermediate way to compile your overall answer, so you would need to do the entire computation of 10^46.7 positions in one parallel "shot", with no decoherence.  Compared to that criteria, current quantum computer capability is far, far less than the Kittyhawk analogy .  It's like comparing a single cell organism to a blue whale.

This is the basic table of operations possible for quantum computers, for reference going forward:

So any problem that can be clearly expressed in terms of matrix operators and can be solved by the manipulation of matrices will be efficiently solved by quantum computing. But not every problem falls into that class.

Right, and between that problem and the "destructive read" problem (that taking a measurement in the middle of a quantum computer matrix operation ruins the operation) means that there are many, many problems where quantum computing is not the tremendous advantage it is elsewhere.  You can't even do simple looping...there's no easy way to track what iteration you are in.  One of the very simplest traditional instruction set operations, incrementing a counter and then checking that counter's value, is one of the most difficult things to do in quantum computing.

It's like taking a handheld calculator, and telling someone to come up with special relativity, and they can punch in as many numbers as they want to, but they can only hit an operation key (like +, -, *, /, or =) one time .

A quantum computer? The very last thing it will be used for is “solving” or “hurting” chess theory.  Sorry, i can’t add one intelligent comment the way y’all have. 

#47
Conventional computers were not intended to play chess and yet they do.
Likewise quantum computers are not intended to play chess and yet they will.
#46
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0211100.pdf 
Quantum computers allow to perform boolean operations with quantum conditions. A conventional computer entirely consists of boolean gates NAND or XOR. Hence it is possible to run a chess program on a quantum computer.

Deep Blue and Sesse have proven that chess lends itself to parallel processing, hence a quantum computer offers the potential to run a chess program many times faster than a conventional computer.

#44
Yes, these are the elementary building blocks of a quantum computer, just like the elementary building blocks of a conventional computer are field effect transistors.

Quantum computers are commercially available
https://www.ibm.com/quantum-computing/services/ 

You are making leaps that do not follow.  [Y] does not necessarily follow from [X], and [B] does not necessarily follow from [A].

....hence, you need to add some support/intermediate logic to support your premises .  Your PDF is from 2002, which is like posting a 1965 paper about Higgs-Boson.  I am assuming you have some kind of connection to QCL since you seem to be pushing it.

#49
I have no connection to QCL and I am not pushing QCL, I am just answering the original question with facts, figures and my opinion that it is feasible.

[B] follows from [A]: All conventional computers consist of boolean gates NAND or XOR implemented in field effect transistors. The quantum computer can perform boolean operations. Hence a quantum computer can emulate a conventional computer. Hence a conventional chess program can run on a quantum computer.

[X] follows from [Y]. Deep Blue and Sesse have proven that a chess program benefits in speed from parallel processing. A quantum computer excels at parallel processing. Hence a quantum computer offers the potential to run a chess program many times faster.

+1

Guys, asked yourselves: "Did calculators ever hurt humans?". It can add and multiply numbers faster than any of us. The way I see it is that, these engines are the `justifiers`. And we need them, as a means to resolve pity arguments over the board, which probably happened a lot during the 18th century. Don't ever feel inferior your ego over machines. For these machines played trillions of games before achieving the level that they are. Whereas, a human can only play thousands in their lifetime. And yet, a human can still draw against a machine if he thinks hard enough. That is something to ponder about...

Chess will be solved soon. The question is, white will allways win, or black will allways get drawn?

I had a look at the development of tablebases and how many years it took before another piece is added. Using rough numbers I extrapolated all the way up to 32 pieces and saw that it would take 125 years or more before we could have a tablebase that could cover all pieces and the incredibly large number of permutations. That assumed that computers would continue to improve in performance that the same rate as they have done in the past.

Quantum computing could change all of that, and I would expect to see chess solved a lot sooner than that, but it is almost certainly still at least 10 years away and probably 20 years or more.

At the point when Deep Blue beat Kasparov it was bad for chess because International Masters were refused time off to go to tournaments by some confused bosses who took the news to mean that chess was some trivial game.

However over the last 20 years computers have helped players to get much better at chess. The standard now is higher than it has ever been in the past. You no longer need to be wealthy enough to buy 100 books or hire chess coaches in order to get strong at chess. You just need to be a good student, and have plenty of dedication and persistence over many years. 

#54
To solve chess you do not need a 32 men table base. Checkers (24 men) was solved to be a draw calculating from the initial position towards a 10 men table base. I predict that chess will be solved to be a draw by the same method this century, i.e. not soon or in 10 or 20 years.
However I predict that quantum computers will play chess better than conventional computers this decade i.e. win TCEC and ICCF.

#52
AlphaZero gained top grandmaster strength just by playing 700000 games against itself, much more than any human can in his lifetime.

tygxc  if quantum computers ever solve chess [and that is a very big "if"]

before the time it happens it will be quite obvious to most that chess is a draw. Every year there is more and more evidence that chess is a draw. 

Even now the strongest  chess entity  [very top correspondence chess] has people giving up chess as it is so obvious chess is a draw.

- First, being able to emulate single operations does not matter if you cannot store the answer in intermediate stages.

- Second, there are all kinds of devices capable of boolean operations.  Being able to do boolean operations is not the sum total of what a computer is/does.  Your argument is like saying "All cars have tires.  Tricycles have tires, and hence can emulate cars.".  The comparison is particularly apt here because that is what quantum computers currently promise, a gazillion tricycles that cannot go far or do very much, but there are a lot of them...and they are too small to carry anything by themselves from here to there without collapsing (no storage due to decoherence).

- Third, "parallel processing" in this context is a false equivalence.  There's lot of devices that are capable of parallel processing, multi-threaded operations, etc. but it doesn't mean your toaster can solve chess .  

Show us a quantum computer than can increment a measurable counter while still maintaining coherence *and* it's full speed advantage at the same time, and we can *start* to entertain the notion that quantum computers can someday solve chess.

Just playing chess is irrelevant and miniscule by comparison.  Machine learning is far better than traditional engines with human-derived valuations, but this method is not exclusive or tied to quantum computing.  Some hybrid (a quantum computer that passes its results to a traditional computer capable of compiling them) may have some effect on chess theory within a reasonable timeframe, which would satisfy the title and the OP, I guess...but will still fall short of your claims.

Yes, a hybrid computer containing both quantum and classical elements probably offers more promise than a "quantum computer" sensu stricto.

#58
The hybrid is plausible indeed. The CRAY computers also needed an IBM mainframe to feed it.

#57
Quantum programming languages offer a means to output and input qubit registers e.g. to and from a conventional computer.

#56
When chess is solved it will of course be found to be a draw. However, which of these will or will not be a draw: Berlin, Grünfeld, Arkhangelsk, Sveshnikov, Najdorf, Slav, Queen's Gambit Accepted, Queen's Gambit Declined... i.e. which of the 500 ECO codes will lead to a draw and which not? This will narrow what is played. If you know for sure Dutch and King's Gambit are lost, then there is no point in playing these. On the other hand if you know Berlin and Grünfeld draw, then you can just as well open 1 c3 if you know it also draws to evade preparation to a draw. So white will probably play more weird stuff instead of 1 e4 or 1 d4, like Carlsen already does.

Practical chances have little to do with a 32 man EGTB entry. Some drawn positions are easy, some are difficult.

Some top grandmasters err in 7 men table base positions. So having 32 men table base positions would not help them that much.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1993385