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.
#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.
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?
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.
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.
Quantum computers probably will not hurt chess theory for these reasons.
1. Quantum computers may never b e better at chess than what we have now.
2. Chess at the very highest level is already greatly affected and declining -even with what we have now.
3. chess at the lower levels [99% of all chess] is only slightly affected. No reason that will change.
#124
1. Quantum computers are much faster than conventional computers, so when a chess engine is translated into a quantum programming language taking advantage of the parallel processing feature, it will be much stronger than the same engine on a conventional computer.
2. Yes chess is affected and declining, so a quantum computing engine will affect it more and make it decline more.
3. Yes, at lower levels it does not matter. People still play Nine Men's Morris, Connect Four, and Checkers though these games are solved.
#124
1. Quantum computers are much faster than conventional computers, so when a chess engine is translated into a quantum programming language taking advantage of the parallel processing feature, it will be much stronger than the same engine on a conventional computer.
2. Yes chess is affected and declining, so a quantum computing engine will affect it more and make it decline more.
3. Yes, at lower levels it does not matter. People still play Nine Men's Morris, Connect Four, and Checkers though these games are solved.
#s 1 and 2 are wrong to the point of me thinking you're being wrong on purpose.
#126
What do you not understand then?
1. A quantum computer does in 200 seconds what a supercomputer does in 10000 years.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/23/tech/google-quantum-supremacy-scn/index.html
A faster computer makes a stronger engine.
2. Chess is affected by engines. Stronger engines will affect it more.
#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.
No-one even knows how to.
I believe it is possible someone will, some day. I also believe it may be impossible.
#126
What do you not understand then?
1. A quantum computer does in 200 seconds what a supercomputer does in 10000 years.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/23/tech/google-quantum-supremacy-scn/index.html
A faster computer makes a stronger engine.
2. Chess is affected by engines. Stronger engines will affect it more.
Lol...it's amusing that the article you linked contains a quote from the CEO of Google comparing quantum computers current situation to the first flight at Kittyhawk...the exact same comparison I made earlier and that you tried to refute saying quantum computers were far ahead of that mark.
Speaking of not reading your own sources...your "upper bound of 10^45.888" link has the developer saying right at the bottom that it's not verifiable. Stick with 10^46.7 for now.
Your 10^20 number doesn't even have an attempt at backup.
"chess is affected by engines. Stronger engines will affect it more."
I presume you are talking about the upper 1% of the chess population? correct me I am wrong.?
If you are talking about the upper 1%---if and by the time quantum computers get super strong--chess at the upper 1% level will already be dead. 
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.