quantum computer. will it hurt chess theory?

btickler Super GMs understand top engine play very well. The reason a 2800 rated GM will lose to a 3500 rated chess engine is mainly due to the fact that the chess engine can  view millions of positions a second.. 

Top GMs look at the games played by top chess engines and understand the moves of the game very well. Even, a player as low as I can look at games played by top chess engines and understand the moves well.

I have a book "GAME CHANGER" by Matthew Sadler and Natasha Regan. [400+ pages!]  It is about  Alpha Zero's chess Strategies.  At about the time the book was printed Alpha Zero was one of the strongest chess  entities.  [it no longer is the very strongest chess engine]

It was an enjoyable read.  It explained the moves and chess strategies very well.  Sadler and Regan are not super grandmasters . But they understand the moves and the games and chess strategies quite well. 

So much so that they invested a lot of time and energy and analysis to hope their book would be  published. They also had to hope that enough average chess players would also understand what was in the book to buy the book and give it a good rating.

Also top correspondence players understand  the moves of top engines very well. [this is one reason  they never lose]

 Now a 1000 USCF rated player will not very well understand the moves of a 1700 USCF rated player.  And a 1200 USCF player will not very well understand the moves of a 1900 USCF rated player. However a 1900 USCF  rated player will fairly well understand the moves of a 2500 USCF-rated player.   Also a 1900 USCF rated player will understand most of  the moves and strategies in the book about Alpha Zero.

By the way there are many rating pools that are not comparable to each other [but that is a different subject]

Yeah. My 60 Memorable Games was an enjoyable read to me, too...and I understood the brilliancies and tactics and even much of the positional play.  It doesn't mean I can play like Fischer or claim to understand/predict his play .

Your claim about 1900 players understanding a 2500 player's games does not hold up...understanding various pros and cons of the positions does not mean a 1900 can correctly prioritize and choose which factors are actually more important in the position...it simply means that a GM can annotate a game and they can follow along and nod.  This is similar to Carlsen commentating a TCEC game...follow along and nod, appreciate the brilliancies/tactics.  Your continued claims of humans still being valued partners in centaur games (and your notion that in longer time controls humans could still outplay engines) are fantasies.

The reason that you can get away with these fantasies is that the engines can't tell you how much you don't understand like humans can .

btickler  you way underestimate what human chess players can  understand.

I do not know anything about "centaur games"  What I do know about is top level correspondence games [what is a "centaur game"?][does it have more than one definition?]

You apparently do not understand top level correspondence chess as you keep giving very wrong descriptions of what it is. [I think you do this on purpose as this has been explained to you more than once]

The fact that chess engines will beat grandmasters and super grandmasters does not at all mean grandmasters and super grandmasters do not understand the moves of top chess engines. The chess engines win mainly because they can look at millions of moves per second. [you like to ignore this]

I know lots of grandmasters who never lose against very strong opposition and they understand their own games and games of the top chess engines. 

The games of top chess engines are similar to top correspondence and top human games. games.  There are 1000s of  principles of chess which come out in both human and chess engine games.

If quantum chess computers get stronger than current chess computers --it will be the same. 

1000s of chess principles easy to understand.

There are plenty of times a GM will say on video (YouTube) they don't understand this or that move an engine plays.

Maybe 30 years ago you could say that GMs understand engine play, but not anymore, and they get better every year.

You don't even play chess anymore (for many decades), so you shouldn't have such strong opinions.

llama47  You are quite wrong. I play chess just about every day. Am on a vote chess team which only plays the strongest vote chess teams it can find.  We really do page after page of analysis for every move.  Since I have been on the team we have a record of 61 wins and 1 draw and no loses

Also have have done a couple of exhibitions on chess com where I played only with Black. 

My record includes winning from some games vs 2500s and 1 GM and masters and experts.  Also won a 4 game match vs  a 2100 rated player. Mu record in both exhibitions was actually very good.

Also there was a  very strong team which had just beat a strong master. I don't think they had ever lost or drawn?

I challenged them to a game to be shown on the internet.  Their conditions included I had to play White against their opening. Also they had 7 days to make a move. Also the team, was allowed various time outs and vacations!  

The team leader was a strong player [recently #2 In the USA and a GM at correspondence chess.]

However also on the team were 7 or 8 strong masters.

The game lasted about a year. The team used more than 300 days of reflection time. Also they used time outs and vacations.

At one point the tournament director declared the team had over stepped the time limit and had lost. However the team did not accept this--they essentially said it was their team and they could change the rules!!

This did not bother me at all as I knew I could win. So the game continued!

I won the game after it continued. We were in  the endgame and I sacrificed my knight for a lone  pawn. It was actually a very long forced combination. [and a very good move]

At the end of the game I had only used 1 day of reflection time to their over 300.

So you see Mr. llama47 your statement per post #91 is not correct.

I'm not going to read your long post because it's not worth it. You think I'm wrong because you're senile.

llama47  Of course you are not going to read it because it proves you are wrong. 

Why not just stop your ad hominem attacks????

Nobody likes someone to make up lies to disparage.

Yes, I'm rude.

I don't think we're going to agree, so I don't mind if we just ignore each other.

I've already opined on what I think of votechess teams with 61 wins, 1 draw, and 0 losses.

Grandmasters cannot understand engine play at the 3500 level any more than a 1200 understands why they play a6 in the Najdorf.  You can tell them why, but they will not be able to separate this from other candidate moves and understand why a6 has to to come before, say, d5.  Nor, if the opponent deviates, will they know when they could actually dispense with a6 as no longer needed. 

Same with GMs looking at top engines play.  They recognize good moves, but often not why the engine decided to play a particular good move over another.  Because while GMs understand those 1000 principles you mentioned, they don't know how to prioritize them as well as the engines have evolved to.

Again, though. not really on topic for this thread...let's get back to quantum computing.

btickler Yes, if I remember you seemed to accuse that team of possible cheating? Terrible to do that-it was really just an attack on a team you do not know how strong just because I am on the team. you have no way of knowing how strong the team is?

By the way GMs usually know many times 1000 principles

Suggest stop the ad hominem and get back to forum topic. 

.  

I'll bet you can't name even 300 distinct chess principles, much less many thousand (and if you try it should be on a new thread, not this one).  But that's just the way you are, always exaggerating everything past the point of credibility.  Have a nice weekend.

btickler    I made a list of 69 distinct principles for the vote chess team I am on. Of course I could have made a list of 300.  

GMs in  general have 1000s of chess ideas in their head. Heck in he openings alone they often have 1000s. 

I wrote 3 books on chess and in those books  are 1000s of ideas.[this is way over 300]

Sorry you  vastly under estimate the skills and knowledge of GMs.   You really have a problem wanting to denigrate others. 

"1000s of ideas" is the not same as 1000s of unique chess principles.  A chess principle is something like "in the absence of other overriding factors, capture towards the center", etc. not "if your opponent plays the Kmoch you are fighting to stop the e4 break" or something like that, which is just opening theory...and definitely not some specific novelty move idea in some opening variation.  You're just backtracking by moving away from the definition of what chess principles are.

Sorry you need to try and contort your way out of misstatements.  You really have a problem never wanting to admit you are exaggerating . 

Like your mythical mountains of evidence, I will have to remain skeptical of even the list of 69 distinct principles unless you decide to share it.  I've seen far too many circular and meandering bullet lists of "reasoning" to believe you.  The last time you tried to "prove" chess is forced draw by listing your reasoning, you listed 3-4 unique reasons and 7-8 reasons circular reasons that depending entirely on the first 3-4.  

I don't want to denigrate "others", but I do call out BS.  Some sources of BS are more prolific than others.  Let's leave it at that.

btickler any chess idea can also  be a chess principle [you should know this] Also a chess principle  does not have to be unique.  For example don't move a pawn twice  in the opening without a very good reason.  This principle is not unique at all but it is one  all good players have.  Also Do not move a piece twice in the opening unless you have a very good reason to move it twice. Again there is nothing  unique about this principle at all.

I never said a chess principle has to b e a novelty. It is obvious that many chess principles  are not novelties. [you should know this]

opening theory has many chess principles associated with it. Even one particular opening can have it's own chess principles that are only relevant to that opening or even to a specific opening variant. [you should know this also]

You really do not understand the subject as you were trying trying to imply that a chess principle cannot be part of opening theory.

I really don't care that you are skeptical of my list of 69 principles already published.  You are skeptical about many things which are absolutely true. I could tell you a lot of things which are true but would not believe them,. The members of the vote chess club where I published the 69 principles know I did this. Who cares that you again don't believe the truth?

 Also I don't care that you are skeptical  about the ton of evidence I have provided in the long forum but that subject we have agreed not to talk about in this forum.

Youi say you don't want to denigrate others but you do it. you use ad hominem often 

Remember when you were making fun of your close family member who had either very severe dementia or possibly Alzheimer's because you wanted to imply I was like that?? To treat a close  family member that way is what?   Very poor taste does not adequately  describe what you did. 

I didn't make fun of anyone in my family.  That's your (as usual) mistaken impression of something.

That you cannot understand my distinction about opening theory and novelty moves vs. actual chess principles just confirms this trend .  I never said anything about there being no chess principles in the opening...learn to discern what you are reading.  You're stretching credability once again with your "even an opening variant can have it's own chess principles", by the way.  That's not how the definition of "principle" works.  If you look it up you will find phrases like:

"fundamental truth"

"proposition that serves as a foundation"

"general theorum or law"

"applications across a wide field"

All of which belie the narrow specificity you are claiming.

But let's put your money where your mouth is...

Go ahead and pony up 300 chess principles along the lines of "don't move the same piece twice in the opening without a good reason" (which is, in fact, a chess principle).  But do it on a new thread and stop trying to hijack this one.  

btickler you do not understand that chess opening theory consists of many chess opening  principles.  Because you may only know a few chess opening principles does not mean much more do not exist. 

And no I am not going to teach you by listing 300 of them.  You are not a good student--too narrow minded and you don't know the truth when presented to you.

I know lots of chess principles that apply to the opening.  Still separate from opening theory, and you know there's a distinction so just stop pretending there isn't.

The point is you don't even have 300 principles you can articulate, much less the "many thousands" you claimed...that's why you listed 69 for your votechess group...and I bet a bunch of those are repeated multiple times and vaguely defined, knowing you.

I would not put my knowledge of chess principles that far off yours at present, and there's a good chance I can organize and articulate them better than you at this point.

I don't think you have anything much left to teach me or anyone else, unless it's about the Ponziani (you know...opening theory?), but thanks anyway.

Now, for the 3rd time...get back on topic, or start another thread if you don't want to discuss quantum computing.

btickler you were the one who got off topic. Sorry but please stop asking me to do things for you?

Your lack of logic in post #108 is obvious.

While I have glibly hypothesised the possibility of a quantum computer solving chess, last time I looked there was not even a proposal for a use of quantum computing technology which could in principle analyse chess faster than a conventional computer, never mind actually solving it.  Quantum computing is far from being a souped up version of normal computing - it only does some things faster, not all. In this it is similar to parallel computing which provides huge speed-ups for some tasks and none at all for others.

My very vague idea is that chess analysis involves many parallel branches which could perhaps be superposed, but these are hierarchical (recursive) in nature, not a natural fit to quantum computing.