End it lol
quantum computer. will it hurt chess theory?
Sort:
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.
ponz111 wrote:
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.
Jun 28, 2021
0
#106
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.
Here's a setup you could build with your friends, maybe it'll answer your question:
Connect 6 computers to a network (or build a blade server, etc.), have computer 1 & 2 calculate two separate branches of nodes and load them into a buffer, have computers 3, 4 & 5 running different engines working on those nodes to produce their own analysis, have computer 6 fine comb the results over a cup of coffee and decide what move is to be played. Stream the entire thing to us and post the link here.
The key is potential. We can't have the computers hung up on every single node and it's possibilities, but what one system of 10 computers discards as possibly insignificant, the next system of 10 computers could find different results.
In the end, it's all about branching out like quantum computers, but we've got to figure out ways to minimize unnecessary lookups.
#110
Chess is suitable for parallel computing: Deep Blue and Sesse use several processors running in parrallel. Yes ply n+1 depends on ply n, but the analysis of 2 candidate moves is independent of each other and so can be done in parallel as Deep Blue and Sesse did.
I think it hurts
The key is communication. A new protocol would have to be set up so that every node must express its current state so that the next computer can decide on the temporary relationship it wants to form with said nodes. I'm sort of basing it on social and economic systems. It's not about speed in this case but rather it's about the right variation.
Jun 28, 2021
0
#112
tygxc wrote:
#110
Chess is suitable for parallel computing: Deep Blue and Sesse use several processors running in parrallel. Yes ply n+1 depends on ply n, but the analysis of 2 candidate moves is independent of each other and so can be done in parallel as Deep Blue and Sesse did.
Yes, parallel computing is useful for analysing chess. It's not so clear that quantum computing is.
Jun 28, 2021
0
#113
Sorry to rain on this parade, but the real question remains to be asked and answered; will the quantum computer hurt the chess.com forums?
Jun 29, 2021
0
#115
I heard that quantum computers are good for simulating quantum systems, so theyd be useful for calculating what happens inside of a black hole or how quantum gravity would function. I dont know the specifics but if a quantum computer can run many different lines at infinite depth i think that could be an improvement I wish i knew about the whole parallel computation thing but i suppose like i said it would be more efficient at simulating quantum simulations so i apologize and retract my other comment though i only said i bet it could help it lol
ponz111 wrote: btickler you were the one who got off topic.
ponz111 wrote:
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.
This is where you first headed off topic. I wasn't even involved. Better luck next time around.
Jul 3, 2021
0
#117
To quote the encyclopedia of mathematics, there are several unsolved problems that would need to be solved in order to make a real quantum Turing machine. Presently it is an abstract object that may or may not exist.
#120
Several quantum computers exist and are commercially available for buy or rental
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quantum_processors
#122
Thread is about "will it hurt chess theory?"
not "has it hurt chess theory"
No one has yet translated a chess engine into a quantum programming language and then ran it on one of the available quantum computers.
The thread is not about if it has been done, it is about what will happen after it is done.
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.