True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?

Oh! Forum. When he said format, I thought that I needed a different font. 

This particular one, however, seems to have a relevant title.

Your source--a popular newspaper, rather than a science journal--demonstrates that scientists have a great deal to say about the ice. The non-fact that you erroneously put forth is the claim that global warming is not a serious and significant problem. On that point, you are dead wrong.

I'm going with True.  You know, about if chess will never be solved.

By Moore's Law, we may have the capacity to solving it before the stars burn out. Also quantum computing is on the forefront of current research. The two together may yield the solution we seek. 

Chess might be solved but it doesn't really mean anything since we cannot memorize all the nodes. Solved or not Chess would still be playable OTB.

Broadcast meteorologists are not scientists. If you know me, then you know that I use print media rather than videos. Time is precious. What someone says in 49 minutes, I can read in less than five.

I did manage after many efforts to get all the way through one video by the backyard professor. I'm not gonna try to get through a much longer video by a notorious climate change denier whose science Elo is lower than BYP's chess Elo.

You think 35 year record = all time high and I'm the retard?

Also, sea ice and land ice is an important distinction.

Your half-arsed non-academic links aren't exactly convincing. But when you think you know better than experts based on headlines and youtube documentaries, what should I expect?

Fat lot of good it'll do us, though!

That's one of my top 10 reasons why I would never emigrate permanently in the United States - in Europe nowadays, scientific issues are rarely political.

Could you please keep it for another thread, or better yet another website ? I do have strong opinions about the subject, but I am not going to discuss them here. Back to topic.

Moore's law would predict chess to be solved in something like 80 years (TheGrobe did the calculation in another thread, quoting from memory). But Moore's law cannot continue indefinitely. Computers get more powerful because the size of chips and other hardware decreases, but it will not decrease forever - if nothing else we will eventually reach the molecular limit.

As for quantum computing, it is pure theory for now. The biggest working quantum computer is factorizing 15 = 3*5 at the moment. It might or might not solve chess one day, but any guess about it is speculation and wishful thinking.

Is it taking all this time to do it, or is it doing the same factorization over and over? Either way, it's not terribly impressive. 

Actually, 21=3*7 is the current record using Shor's Algorithm for factoring with quantum computing, but yeah, it's still a very long way from being able to do useful work.

IronTiger  there is a forum on Chess.com where you can discuss anything.

It is Open Discussion.  They would be glad to discuss Global Warming with opinions and facts on both sides.

In the United States if you are running for president and say you believe in evolution--you are in trouble with your own party.  

Science is devalued by half the population.

I think it's run only once in a while, but that it's instantaneous - my wording might have been inaccurate : quantum computers can only factorize up to... (3*5 or 3*7). The real problems are of two kinds.

One, quantum bits are incredibly hard to maintain, so that the storage is limited. Decoherence (ie the loss of the interesting quantum property of entanglement via unwanted interaction with the environment) is a huge issue. The 3*5 or 3*7 limit comes from the number of qbits you can align, not from the algorithm itself.

Two, (and I wish some specialist can correct/confirm me here) quantum computers are not "programmed" the way standard computers are. The algorithm is hard-coded as some physical elements, and even the "procedure" (ie the steps the algorithm follows) is different from standard algorithm because you cannot copy variables (which makes stuff a lot harder). This is not the limiting factor right now, but if later on we have quantum computers powerful enough to solve chess, it might still need a lot of investment to program them to do that task.

Most people in France take pride in not being able to do math. However, none of them takes stances on politics based on their opinion on a scientific subject (except maybe economics, but it's hard to put that as a "science" at the same level than say biology).

I don't think it's really a question of general scientific education. It's more of a political culture issue. In the same vein, I doubt you can find many people who know which religion follow our current and our former presidents (I know the current one is atheist but only because I opened a biography at the right page in a library, I have no idea for the previous one) - could you even imagine that in the US ?

In the USA if the public knows you are an atheist--you cannot get elected to office.

Really? I find the opposite is true.

VULPES  Aren't you from Canada?

ponz111 wrote:

In the USA if the public knows you are an atheist--you cannot get elected to office.

I thought so too, but then Obama came

Wow! The ignorance of chess and computing in these threads is significant enough to create despair, but when the subject veers away from chess, despair mutates. That folks who know less about the world than should be expected of a seven year old are able to move chess pieces on a computer screen could not have been predicted. I am stunned.