I'm Chad Kagen, however quantum PCs are cool, so they ought to have the capacity to do it, and yes, chess is obviously a draw.
Thanks
Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
Chess was solved last week. It just wasnt in the news.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Short answer, chess will never be solved. Only a god or goddess can solve chess
Dec 30, 2016
0
#727
waffllemaster wrote:
e.g. a little quiz. If every position + its evaluation only took 1 bit of storage space, and every bit could be stored in the size of an atom, then how big would the storage device be?
A) Bigger than the moon.
B) Bigger than the sun.
C) More atoms than our solar system.
D) More atoms than our galaxy.
What a stupid statement! Bits don't take up space, they are stored logically, which means more than a several million bits can be stored in 1 atoms's space.
Let me debunk your statement.
The average diameter of an atom = 1E-10 meter
The number of bits in a 1 TB hard drive = 8E12
Therefore according to your logic the size of a 1 TB hard drive will be = 1E-10 * 8E12 = 800 meters
So, your hard drive that is nearly a kilometer in diameter just stores 1 TB of information, sounds absurd?
Hard drives with storage capacities thrice of this are seen today in personal computers.
JuergenWerner wrote:
Short answer, chess will never be solved. Only a god or goddess can solve chess
Surely you can put your certain knowledge of the future to better use than this?
Never yes!! You will have less strategy!
CP6033 wrote:
Speak for yourself.
in the next 30-40 years no, 100-200 who cares? i mean none of us will be alive then.
Fixing_A_Hole wrote:
I mean technically that would make the answer all of the above......
waffllemaster wrote:
This has been asked and talked about before. The answer is no.
ifoody wrote:
Sadly yes. It may take some years, but the technology advances all the time, and if today's computer need 200 years to solve chess completley, in 10 years the will need 50 years, and maybe in some time solving games like chess will be something that every 8 years old kid can do with his personal computer at home.
But the answer is for sure, yes.
The problem with that logic is they currently need an absurd number like 10^50 years. So in the future, when it gets 100x faster, they'll only need 10^48 years, and in the very far far far future, only 10^40 years.
And then there's the impracticality (more like impossibility) of storing the solution.
e.g. a little quiz. If every position + its evaluation only took 1 bit of storage space, and every bit could be stored in the size of an atom, then how big would the storage device be?
A) Bigger than the moon.
B) Bigger than the sun.
C) More atoms than our solar system.
D) More atoms than our galaxy.
Answer is none of the above- More atoms than in the universe.
nimzomalaysian wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
D) More atoms than our galaxy.
What a stupid statement! Bits don't take up space, they are stored logically, which means more than a several million bits can be stored in 1 atoms's space.
Let me debunk your statement.
The average diameter of an atom = 1E-10 meter
The number of bits in a 1 TB hard drive = 8E12
Therefore according to your logic the size of a 1 TB hard drive will be = 1E-10 * 8E12 = 800 meters
LOL!! Are you serious? Or are you trolling?
Dec 30, 2016
0
#733
Pilchuck wrote:
nimzomalaysian wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
D) More atoms than our galaxy.
What a stupid statement! Bits don't take up space, they are stored logically, which means more than a several million bits can be stored in 1 atoms's space.
Let me debunk your statement.
The average diameter of an atom = 1E-10 meter
The number of bits in a 1 TB hard drive = 8E12
Therefore according to your logic the size of a 1 TB hard drive will be = 1E-10 * 8E12 = 800 meters
LOL!! Are you serious? Or are you trolling?
Why? I'm being serious.
You are forgetting that harddrives have three dimensions though
To put it differently, by the logic that nimzomalaysian brings against wafflemasters logic, humans should be impossible, as all the dna of one single human bodily cell spans a length of 3 meters
OK, I'll byte (lol)
1) Describe the physical dimensions of your hard drive that you have described mathematically.
2) Describe the "logical" method of storing millions of bits on a single atom.
So if you're serious, those two challenges should keep you busy for a while, although #1 is pretty easy. And if you're trolling, the challenge is to be creative in the shaping of the torrent (lol again) of bullshit that must necessarily follow.
Have fun!
Dec 30, 2016
0
#737
RoepStoep wrote:
You are forgetting that harddrives have three dimensions though
No, my logic is fool proof, the hard drive I suggested will be a sphere. A sphere with a diameter of 800 metres.
Dec 30, 2016
0
#738
Pilchuck wrote:
OK, I'll byte (lol)
1) Describe the physical dimensions of your hard drive that you have described mathematically.
2) Describe the "logical" method of storing millions of bits on a single atom.
So if you're serious, those two challenges should keep you busy for a while, although #1 is pretty easy. And if you're trolling, the challenge is to be creative in the shaping of the torrent (lol again) of bullshit that must necessarily follow.
Have fun!
Wait, so you agree with the statement that each bit will take the space of 1 atom?
"Wait, so you agree with the statement that each bit will take the space of 1 atom?"
In actuality, no, because the technology is not there yet. But for the sake of argument, yes.
nimzomalaysian wrote:
RoepStoep wrote:
You are forgetting that harddrives have three dimensions though
No, my logic is fool proof, the hard drive I suggested will be a sphere. A sphere with a diameter of 800 metres.
No it is not, you are confusing the dimensions. It is more easily to add cubes than spheres by comparison, but the exact same logic applies. If you have a cube with 2cm sides, you can fit eight 1cm cubes inside. By your logic eight 1cm cubes need 8 cm space lenghtwise to be stored. Of course that's true if you place them next to eachother linearly, but you don't need an object with 8cm sides, as you have three dimension, so 2 cm suffices
Yes, a few pages back I've stated that in my opinion the way forwards in artificial intelligence are neural networks, and that it would be very interesting to see techniques like google used with AlphaGo applied to chess engines, that hasn't been done before.
Regarding the matter of solving chess, 32 men tablebases cannot be done, that much should be clear by now. As that is the only real solution to solving chess in the strong sense, the alternative is to create an engine that plays as strong as possible. With that goal in mind we can do more of the same (larger tablebases, faster processors, more efficient searchtechniques etc), or we could possibly try a paradigm shift by using neural networks. Neither approach will result in solving the game obviously, but it is interesting and fun to see how strong engines can get