100 million FICS games
On 13/03/2017 19:46, raylopez99 wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 6:07:22 AM UTC-4, Rainer wrote:
On 12/03/2017 23:32, raylopez99 wrote:
This week's Economist has a special section on how quantum
computers have gone mainstream. Chess tree to be solved soon,
to xyz moves, depending on what kind of quantum computer you
have (the more qubits you have--which is hardware related--the
more moves you can search; I can see in the future the entire
chess tree to say 1000 moves deep being completed exhaustively
searched with a top-of-the-line quantum computer).
Science fiction says Andy Walker, but the poor chap, being
retired and retarded, doesn't keep up with the literature!
Rubbish. Quantum computers are able to solve a limited subset of
computational problems efficiently. Playing chess is none of these
Quantum computers will contribute as much to the solution of chess
Stupidity rains down on us. You, not a programmer like me, know
nothing --NOTHING--about what you speak of. If you know how RLC
analog computers work, and how they can solve second-order
differential equations if you set them up correctly, you'd
understand that programming a general purpose quantum computer is the
same. You program the quantum computer to assume the state of the
chess tree, maybe with one or more qubits representing legal moves
(how many legal moves are there in chess per position? That would be
your maximum number of qubits). They already have a dedicated
quantum computer to solve the Traveling Salesman problem, which is an
O(n!) complex problem (do you even know what Big-Oh notation means?
Doubtful), and the chess tree is no more difficult than that.
And oh--big Oh--I have solved such problems and even more difficult
problems in my professional capacity. As part of a team, but I have
More rubbish. You fail to understand the very fundamentals of quantum
computing. The following simple question will make it clear:
How do you verify the output of a (hypothetical) quantum chess solver?
You didn't think of it, right?