Will computers ever solve chess?

I suppose it depends what the exponent is.  If it is 2, then 1,000 only squares to 1,000,000, which is still a small number.  Meanwhile 10^45 still square-roots to 10^22, which remains far too big.  But if the exponent could be large enough then maybe...and actually I am not sure...

For example, could 64 squares be encoded in each of fifteen states (KQRBKP for both sides or empty) and then could all of that be considered at once due to quantum uncertainty?  Must admit I have no idea if it even works that way.  Maybe I'll try to read up on it.

Answering myself, at least for the moment, and without taking a PhD level course at the border of CS and Physics, from what I can determine, quantum computers aren’t expected to be all that well suited to this problem.

Apparently the exponent we are dealing with is still 2.  That is to say 2 states per qubit.  Even considered all at once, this isn’t nearly as cool as if the number of states could be much larger.

Also apparently, quantum computers are not expected to be particularly good at solving problems involving sequence (which chess more or less is).  That is, you could possibly encode all the states in a very large number of qubits.  But then you still need to connect them up in meaningful sequence, which is just as hard as it ever was.

And lastly (lol, as if), you still need to be able to “read” the solution even if the quantum machine is capable of giving it, and it’s still as big as it ever was.

Sorry for the edits--the self-quoting wasn't working very well.

.. At least, it takes a slightly different 'tack' in emphasizing, the importance, of this acknowledged, {Big}, technological, breakthrough !  [ :

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/260215-alphazero-new-chess-champion-harbinger-brave-new-world-ai

Thanks to everyone on this thread such as @RCMorea, @Flank_Attacks, @IfPatriotGames, @winston_weng, @LawAndOrderKing, @s23bog, @NelsonMoore, @Elroch, @me_roma, @hairhorn, and plenty of others, all who are polite, and have thoughtful, insightful, and interesting comments. (of course I missed a lot of people, but this seems to be one of the most popular topics on chess.com). Interesting stuff!😊

I see you conveniently skipped over my statement that brute force plus added shortcuts were used to solve all of Vickylan's list.  You posit a giant shortcut that still leaves this in "unsolvable in our lifetimes territory".  Perhaps, while trying to argue with me, you could also address Vickylan's claim that chess can be solved within 25-50 years, or sbog's claims that chess can be solved any day if only we have a breakthrough in storing arrays using vegetables ...

Because I am not here to argue with fairly reasonable posts like yours.  I am here to debunk ridiculous diagrams and numbers pulled of of hindquarters.  If you want to assume a square root reduction, go ahead...but I'll be the one posting here in 25 years with a giant 72 font size "I told you so".  You are assuming an "analogous reduction" and a "best case scenario" that equates checkers with chess, but checkers is half the board size, and the pieces move in ways that are incredibly simplified (to the point of being binary before kings are on the board ).

As for your 10^46.7 assertion, I've already posted about that long ago to refute Vickylan and some similar (but his are completely based on garbage assumptions) reductions to 10^30.  Which, as you admit, is still beyond not only current capabilities, but even reasonably expected future capabilities.

If you would like to officially join the other side of this argument, all you need to do is agree with Vickylan and say:

I think chess will be solved within our lifetimes.

Go for it.

I never said "I think chess will be solved within our lifetimes." Like so much else in your message, you like to invent nonsense, and seem to base your arguments on hyperbole and fantasy.😊

Well, look at this ^^^ copied from page 32...

Re-read your old post.  Your previous post (not this quoted one) is comparing 10^60 games to 10^46.7 positions.  And you know it!  Checkers actual complexity is 10^21, reduced to 10^14 by "shortcuts".  If you want to compare 10^60, then you should be comparing it to the Shannon number, 10^120.

You flat out stated in your post on page 32 that to solve chess requires 10^15 times more computing power than solving checkers.  Now are you going to tell me that an increase in mankind's sum total of computing power is going to increase 10^15 times within the next 50 years?  Hell, 500 years?

Do you know how big an atom is? There's millions of atoms in a peice of dust.

What does that have to do with anything here? I never said "I think chess will be solved within our lifetimes." Like so much else in your message, you like to invent nonsense, and base your arguments on hyperbole and fantasy.😊

Ummm...can you recognize that a post that quotes someone else and then replies to it is not directed at you?

Your post is next.

Interesting.  I started to write up an example of why you are wrong and proved to myself you are right.  It's 2^N.  In fact, at least at one point, I already knew this but was failing to apply it properly.

So...that would suggest all the positions could be examined within a probably feasible quantum computer.

I'm not sure that changes the answer because I don't actually understand some of the other objections I've come across, especially why quantum computers are said to be bad at problems involving sequence (I could guess that having encoded all these positions they still have to go through them in order, but it would only be a guess).  And would the existence of the machine itself count as a proof, if you couldn't store the output?

For sure, the very existence of quantum mechanics should keep anyone living in this world from being too sure they know the answer to anything.

I have to apologize Vickylan...you never did state that explicitly.  You also never said 50 years.  You actually gave a bunch of ridiculous calculations and claimed it could be done in 18 years...check page 61.  You stated on 2 other occasions that chess could be solved in the next couple of decades.  Later you effectively recanted and said 200 years, with ironically even more specious reasoning, on page 109.  Since then you have kept your number to yourself for close to 100 pages.  What that shows anyone paying attention is that (A) you were full of crap to begin with, (B) you later realized you were full of crap but never admitted it, and (C) that now you have given up on even standing behind your retreat to 200 years number.  Because...you know you are wrong.  Just admit it.

I do apologize for giving you credit for 50 years when you believed an even more unreasonable 18-20.

Some of your quotes, in chronological order:

"On the other hand, if best play is a draw, chess won't be solved until the entire tree is checked. So we can only expect an answer in our lifetime if one side can force a win. But if perfect play is a draw, we probably won't know it within our lifetime."

"Checkers has been solved. Chess is a big leap, but it could happen within a decade or two."

"As for solving chess, there is some reason to believe it can happen within a decade or two."

"So chess might be able to be solved in 18 years."

"These are other advances that will help solve chess, compared to computers in 2007 when checkers was solved. I agree with Campter: Yes - chess may soon be solved."

"If I must make a guess, I would say Yes chess will be solved within 200 years or so."

The next time you claim "invented nonsense" or hyperbole on whatever subject, hopefully people will remember your blatant falsehood here. 

For fun:

You posted your silly tree diagrams on pages 65, 68, 116, 117, 127, and 145.

You posted your triangle diagram on pages 165 and 182.

You posted your Venn diagram on pages 146 and 184.

You posted your moving a sofa animated GIF on page 176...you haven't repeated yourself on that one yet.

While I was sifting through Vickylan's stuff, I also decided to take a look at s23bog's posts...here's a sample of bipolar manic episodes run amok:

"There is currently enough computing power on the planet to solve chess, and store the solution. It is a matter of priorities, however, and chess ranks pretty low for the VAST majority of people."
"Running a chess engine like a farm might be a worthwhile idea."
"There is a ton of mining, here in Chile. So, mining has been on my mind for a little while. Excessive heat can be a problem, from what I understand. I can't think of an effective way to collect the heat to be converted into a more usable form (like electricity?)."
"If you were to create a manager of engines ... kind of like a music conductor of chess engines ..."
"While the answer to the question is a single bit, the proof of the answer is not something people can really see with our eyes, or grasp with our minds."
"I am quite capable of taking a stance that may be wrong. Sometimes I do this to challenge others. Other times, it is just because I feel like motivating others. In this case, it is because I truly believe that white is the only one that can force a win from the initial position"
"I wouldn't mind losing my reputation. Was thinking what life would be like if I wasn't constantly messing things up. Undoubtedly, there would be plenty of people quite thrilled by my demise, but I would quickly be forgotten, I am sure. No benefit from any death is ever very long lived."
"Many position have been solved for chess. Tactics are a good example of a few. But in order to solve the game, we really need to solve for the 0 position. Considering that this position occurs with the absolute greatest of frequency, for about a thousand years, or so ... it stands to reason, that this position has "eaten up" the greatest amount of processing time. I think back to reading about Bobby Fischer thinking for 5 minutes before making his first move in game 6 of the 1972 match with Spassky."
"There only needs to be one way for white to force a win for there to be a forced win for white."
"I compared it before to threading a needle. The thread moves (black) and the needle moves (white), but they only need to line up one way to get the thread through the needle. One move for white from the initial position and one response for every black response to that one move for as many moves as it takes."
"I have made no such assumption. The only assumption I am making is that black cannot force a win."
"It isn't like it is that hard to get the rating up for a 2600 player."
"How about, as a path to finding out the actual solution, we were to create a tree of white wins, only? From there, it becomes a matter of seeing if you can stay on that tree without falling off of it."

"Using computers to solve chess would be tantamount to turning on a big electromagnet."

"You may have quoted a post, but it wasn't my post. I never said that there was no chance that black could force a win. I decided to take the position that black does not have a forced win, but, as I have stated, I am quite capable of taking positions that are wrong. Sometimes, I even take positions I don't believe are right."
"But, these mammoth complexes that you could build, need not be tethered to the earth."
"It is interesting to think of what actually is meant by "under the sun", since we revolve around the sun. From the perspective of someone actually ON the sun, it would be anything over the sun."
"I was thinking earlier of the time that computers take before deciding on a move. If the computer controls this, it would seem the computer has attained the ability to judge for itself."
"Does no one see any promise by dividing up the positions by pawn structure?"
"Let's say the data is like snow on a mountain face, and the spherical storage devices collect data from a mountain of users as it rolls down into a lake, where it gets melted into a big lake."
"Chess is like a tree. For the computer, we can think of the numbering system as the roots of the tree. Games played using a particular numbering system would be the roots of the tree."
"I present myself as I am, and usually people show me the door. I even recall the door actually being slammed shut once."
"For that matter, it isn't worth arguing about whether or not chess will be solved either. I don't find such endeavors very productive."
"I have declared war against the United States"

I like the second one. Running a chess engine like a farm might be a worthwhile idea. Anyone that thinks that way can't be all bad.

Lol, you went back more than a 100 pages and created a Table of Contents to prove that what you said I said, I never said!🤠

Actually, your posts were pretty easy to parse, which is why I did a second pass for s23bog.  And, what you said was actually worse.  I consider it time well spent...not to convince you, but to show your lack of integrity to your audience at large.

Still TBD.