FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
ECHECS06 CAN I GO ALONG WITH YOU=IWILL BAIT YOUR HOOK
I was wondering if you where here.""I was watching from down there.""Why didn't you come and watch with me here?""I knew how you must be feeling. I guessed you'd rather be alone.""It's the devil; isn't it ?""Yes, 'its rather." "It's most disappointing. I shall have to go all out on some modifications. I wonder if I could ask you to do something ?""Of course. Anything I can." Well, you see. It isn't only the structure of the bomb.It's the trouble. It's in the bopping of itWe must lessen the force of the impact.I asked you originally if you could fly in over water,and drop the bomb at 150 feet."
I contemplate this idea quite often. Some people act as if they would quit playing, if it was finally solved. I would guess checkers is already solved, but I am sure people still play. I think it could be possible for someone to memorize all of the nuances of checkers, but I don't think even the greatest memory I have ever seen for memorizing chess moves, could completely take advantage of it.
Even armed with the knowledge that, if one plays with one of today's popular openings or defenses, that would possibly become shown by engines, to produce a sure fire result for either side, should all of the best moves be made, we as humans will still be confronted with the daunting task of memorizing the best lines, and hoping if our opponent forces us into a different line, that it won't garner a different result.
Does anyone else see it differently? I could possibly see the Magnus Carlsens of the world, perhaps taking advantage of one opening for white, but you can't always use the same defense. I just don't see anyone ever being anywhere close to, being able to memorize enough, that they would be unbeatable.
If I am not way off base here with my idea, why is it then, people would want to quit playing Chess? It makes no sense to me. Besides, if we all suddenly have access to NZT and can remember it all. I am sure with our newly increased intellect we will create something new and chess-like to challenge each other and ourselves.
I spend a bit of time myself wondering how I'll cope when chickens and turkeys take over Wall Street and the government.
Chess will never be solved. No computer and no man will ever manage that.
So how do you cope?...The chickens are too scared to get a real job and put themselves at everyone else's mercy and the turkey are the poor bastards who keep losing their money to the chickens...
I think a computer could in theory someday, but who cares? If you can't memorize the lines, its a mute point anyway...
I agree with your last statement, but your first is actually incorrect, at least with respect to digital computers. If quantum computing becomes a practical reality, then there is a theoretical possibility of a soft solution. But that is generally not what people mean by "solved."
If only this were true....
i'm trying to figure out if this was the smart ass, or the asstard typing.
Don't mute that moot point?
Hope springs eternal, nonetheless.
It appears you read minds now....what am I thinking?
It isn't my fault you can't read...becareful before your fingers overload your aspirator...
it would be so much more fun if you were as smart as you want us to think you are.
I didnt claim to be...I tell you what since you seem so threatened by my present level of intelligence...I'll stop now and let you try to catch up...cheers
are you under the impression that i thought you "claimed" something?
Hi guys, with regards to a quantum computing solution:
The power of a quantum computer is still limited by how much storage space it has. Even on a normal computer, chess is a constant-time problem (with a gigantic constant), and is a problem which will require a complete game tree to solve. This puts chess in the realm of problems for which the limiting factor is storage space, not computing time. A quantum computer will still need to store this entire game tree to deterministically solve chess, and thus, the benefit of quantum computing is negligible. QC is great for problems with a large amount of math, but chess reduces to a set of queries on a gigantic database. Hopefully, memory encoding becomes efficient enough for me to see chess being solved, but this is unlikely at best. The best thing QC can do for chess comes from a higher storage density, but this improvement would have to be colossal to even make a dent in the problem.
Yes, storage is the binding constraint.
Thanks for being relevant, helpful, and nice. Neat trick.
what happened to marathons and track events once cars solved the rapid transportation problem?
People started taking PED's to get faster...lol