Forums

Will Chess ever be "solved"?

Optimissed

There's no doubt that there's a moderation problem in this forum because there are those who make a habit of trying to humiliate others and if their words don't contain any terrible expletives, such as the word for a female dog or the word for a donkey's friend, they are deemed acceptable and no attempt at all is made to check whether they are really trying to humiliate others. And yet, if people stick up for themselves in an honest and perhaps abrupt fashion, theyre the ones out of order and liable to be muted. So the situation here is that trolls are effectively supported in their activities.

Tad2721

It will. AI is too good

Optimissed
tygxc wrote:

Hang on a mo though, quantum computers ar the moment are still in an early developmental stage aren't they??

Optimissed

<<<in autumn 2019, Googles quantum computer Sycamore reached this milestone. In 200 seconds, the machine performed a mathematically designed calculation so complex that it would take the world’s most powerful supercomputer, IBM’s Summit, 10,000 years to do it. This makes Google's quantum computer about 158 million times faster than the world’s fastest supercomputer.

The quantum computer uses the rules of quantum mechanics to perform calculations beyond human comprehension. Quantum mechanics is a branch of physics that deals with photons, electrons and atomic nuclei.

These smallest building blocks of the universe behave completely illogically. For example, the states of two particles can be connected, even though they are a long way apart, and one particle can be in two places at the same time.>>


OK I didn't realise they'd gone that far. OK maybe you're right.

Optimissed

<<These smallest building blocks of the universe behave completely illogically. For example, the states of two particles can be connected, even though they are a long way apart, and one particle can be in two places at the same time.>>

I think the journalist got that a bit wrong though. It isn't illogical at all .... just follows "different rules" and a particle can't be in two places at the same time. It does, however, carry the potential to be in either place, which is indeterminable until measurement. Measurement effectively means interaction with another entity.

btickler
Optimissed wrote:

Oh for Heaven's sake, I credited you with intelligence but maybe it doesn't extend to interpersonal matters. None of us are perfect and when confronted with a troll, it can be difficult. All I have ever done is to respond to attacks because if I don't, and I hesitate to say this, people like you will believe the silken words and you've made it perfectly obvious that you haven't been following what has happened, Ziryab. You're the third person who has accused me of attacking him. Have you any idea how scared many people are to confront him? Any idea at all? Yet if I'm honest I'm being called hypocritical? He plainly said that his interactions with another member are no business of mine and yet he was attacking the other member, in my opinion quite callously. He was reported for it and the mds didn't do anything.  I think you're out of order, Ziryab. Better check there's no hypocrisy in your box.

I would love to see this list of many people scared to confront me.  You've built me up in your head into something a little surreal, don't you think?

I know 'Tuna once called me the Bruce Lee of the forums wink.png...but he was joking and being sarcastic.  I suggest developing a similar sense of humor about it.

btickler
tygxc wrote:

This is a fluff piece.  Notice how the author skirts around the actual calculations being compared.  This will be because they chose a calculation that quantum computers excel at that normal processors do not...shouldn't be hard to find out... 

https://physicsworld.com/a/is-googles-quantum-supremacy-not-so-supreme-after-all/

So the calculation was a random sampling, with no practical application.  An application that quantum computing would excel at, and it beats the supercomputer by 1,000 times, not 158 million.  That, I will buy.

Optimissed

I've taken the decision not to respond to you any more. I'd like to respond but just as it seems that you're being more pleasant, another wave of weirdness occurs, as happened very recently. There are many who see it but if sufficient people pretend it doesn't happen, it looks as if you're completely in the clear. Fortunately, I have a sense of humour. If that's the sort of forum people want, that's what they'll get, so all the best to you, btickler and I hope you have an enjoyable day.

btickler
Optimissed wrote:

I've taken the decision not to respond to you any more. I'd like to respond but just as it seems that you're being more pleasant, another wave of weirdness occurs, as happened very recently. There are many who see it but if sufficient people pretend it doesn't happen, it looks as if you're completely in the clear. Fortunately, I have a sense of humour. If that's the sort of forum people want, that's what they'll get, so all the best to you, btickler and I hope you have an enjoyable day.

I will be heading to sleep wink.png, but enjoy yours.

Optimissed

Thanks. have a good night.

tygxc

#166
You can already buy service by a quantum computer e.g. from IBM
https://www.ibm.com/quantum-computing/services/ 

There are already desktop quantum computers for sale

https://www.discovermagazine.com/technology/a-desktop-quantum-computer-for-just-usd5-000 

Of course the technology will advance in decades to come.
This leads to the belief that chess will be solved this century.

aarnavhps

i hvae no idea wots going on

ponz111

One reason  chess ,might not be solvable is the expense in trying to solve? 

Also why try to solve something for those who know in  advance what the solution will  be?

tygxc

#176
As said before, supercomputers and quantum computers need testing after they are made. Working to solve chess could be a good test. Likewise search for Mersenne Primes was done on supercomputers undergoing factory testing. So the expense is near to zero.

Checkers was also conjectured to be a draw decades before the proof.

ponz111

tygxc   please note I used the words "might not  be solvable"

Expense would  be near zero if your assumptions come true. Not a sure thing they would come true?

"

tygxc

#178
About the future nothing is sure.
During this century:
Men will walk on Mars - probably, not sure
The Riemann Hypothesis will be proved - probably, not sure
A Third World War will erupt - hopefully not
Chess will be solved -  I believe so

Use of factory testing of supercomputers already has been used to find Mersenne primes, so it can be used to solve chess as well.

ponz111

yes nothing is sure as in 100%. [well highly probable  in some situations.]

eflacenna

Everybody suggests that solving chess would be impossible due to 10^120 possibilities which are much higher than the atoms in universe. For starters, unique positions are much smaller than this which is about 10^48, secondly, computer would not need to calculate all unnecessary repetitions and nonsense lines. This would greatly reduce the moves to be calculated. We can go further and make the engine stop calculations after the positions evaluated greater than +10/-10 which means clear win. Having these in mind, supercomputers would be able to solve chess probably.

Omega_Doom

BS topic over and over.