wrote in message
ups.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
wrote in message
Solving for all 32 pieces? Definitely won't happen in our lifetimes....

jm

You don't really need to. All you need to do is solve up to about a
one-pawn
advantage. A 2500 player could beat almost anyone in the world with those
odds.

Definitely not true. There are many GM games in which the winner was
down more than a pawn in material.

jm

I mean down a *good* pawn with no compensation, not down a pawn for the
initiative or down a pawn in a drawn rook or minor piece ending. Ok, maybe
not a 2500 ELO vs. a 2800, but definitely any 2600 vs. anyone.

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
wrote:
Solving for all 32 pieces? Definitely won't happen in our
lifetimes....

You don't really need to. All you need to do is solve up to about a
one-pawn advantage. A 2500 player could beat almost anyone in the
world with those odds.

Nonsense. In many endgames, a single pawn advantage is not enough to
win. In many middlegames, a significant material deficit is not
enough to lose (sacrificial mating attacks).

I mean a good pawn, with plenty of pieces left, in the middlegame, and no
compensation. A full 1.00 evaluation from a top engine. I'm not saying that
a 2500 IM would beat *anyone* *100%* of the time, but I'll stand by my
"almost anyone" statement. There are currently only about 110 players rated
over 2600.

The problem with being down, say, a center (c, d, e, f) pawn is your
opponent can control the center, gain space, outposts, etc. With two good
players winning becomes a matter of technique. Of course, you don't simplify
to a bishops of opposite color ending or a "book" drawn rook ending, or even
a K/p ending unless it's won. Technique.

If any 2400-2550 players are out there I'd love to hear their opinions.

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
wrote:
Solving for all 32 pieces? Definitely won't happen in our
lifetimes....

You don't really need to. All you need to do is solve up to about a
one-pawn advantage. A 2500 player could beat almost anyone in the
world with those odds.

Nonsense. In many endgames, a single pawn advantage is not enough to
win. In many middlegames, a significant material deficit is not
enough to lose (sacrificial mating attacks).

BTW, see the game Navarra-Shirov from today's Corus tournament. I didn't
plug it in so I can't tell you the evaluation after 23...Nxe4, but Navarra
blundered an e-pawn in the middlegame and it was over 11 moves later.

In article ,
Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
wrote:
Solving for all 32 pieces? Definitely won't happen in our
lifetimes....

You don't really need to. All you need to do is solve up to about
a one-pawn advantage. A 2500 player could beat almost anyone in
the world with those odds.

Nonsense. In many endgames, a single pawn advantage is not enough
to win. In many middlegames, a significant material deficit is not
enough to lose (sacrificial mating attacks).

I mean a good pawn, with plenty of pieces left, in the middlegame,
and no compensation. A full 1.00 evaluation from a top engine. I'm
not saying that a 2500 IM would beat *anyone* *100%* of the time

Exactly. So this has absolutely nothing at all to do with *solving*
chess, which would require precisely the knowledge that correct play
would beat anyone 100% of the time.

Proving that White can obtain what looks like an uncompensated one
pawn advantage would give much more evidence than we currently have
that chess is a forced win for White. But it would not solve chess.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Confusing Hungry Dish (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fine ceramic dish but it'll eat you
and you can't understand it!

David Richerby wrote:

Guy Macon "http://www.guymacon.com/" wrote:

Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

According to my calculation to reach 10^43 is around the year 2066
when the law of Moore extrapolates correctly and results each 18
months in a doubling of hardware speed.

...and assuming that a practical quantum computer won't be invented
between now and then.

As I've pointed out to you before, it's by no means clear that quantum
computers will help with chess. Quantum computers work best on tasks
that benefit from parallelization and chess doesn't parallelize very
well.

Actually I think solving chess parallelizes well, but not in a way
that helps playing strength much in normal games.

Make a N-Depth tree of all possible moves, all possible replies
to each move, etc. It gets really big as you go deeper, of course.

Assign each resulting position to a computer Have them all search
for a forced win for either side. No communication needed othetr
than "I found it!."

This is a good strategy for solving chess (you need a *lot* of
parallel machines but in theory it will work), but an exceedingly
poor one for playing a game; all but a couple of the computers
end up working on positions that no sane player would blunder
into.

Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

what type of quantum computers are we talking about,

Start he
http://www.iqc.ca/institute/quantum_computing.php
http://www.toqc.com/TOQCv1_1.pdf
http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~westside/quantum-intro.html

Read this and your head will explode:
http://www.newscientisttech.com/arti...25405.700.html
http://www.physorg.com/news11087.html

the type that exists for 1 / 10000000000000000000000 part of a second?

1/1000 part of a second is plenty.

Assuming that solving chess can be done by searching
multiple positions in parallel for a solution (it is
not clear whether this is true or false), a Quantum
Computer (if one is ever invented) with enough qbits
to solve chess will be able to search for a solution
among 2^N possible solutions in N time.

Thus, a quantum computer that can evaluate
1 position in five milliseconds (my $29.99
LCD handheld can evaluate a positions in
one millisecond) would be able to:

Evaluate 1 position in 5 milliseconds
Evaluate 2 positions in 10 milliseconds
Evaluate 4 positions in 30 milliseconds
Evaluate 8 positions in 40 milliseconds
Evaluate 16 positions in 50 milliseconds
Evaluate 32 positions in 60 milliseconds
Evaluate 64 positions in 70 milliseconds
Evaluate 128 positions in 80 milliseconds
Evaluate 256 positions in 90 milliseconds
Evaluate 512 positions in 100 milliseconds (0.1 second)
....
Evaluate a million (10^6) positions in 0.2 seconds
Evaluate a billion (10^9) positions in 0.3 seconds
Evaluate a trillion (10^12) positions in 0.4 seconds
Evaluate (10^15) positions in 0.8 seconds
Evaluate (10^18) positions in 1.6 seconds
....
Evaluate (10^30) positions in 25 seconds
....
Evaluate (10^36) positions in 100 seconds
....
Evaluate (10^72) positions in 200 seconds
....
Evaluate (10^108) positions in 5 minutes
....and so on.

You could start with quantum computer that can only
evaluate 1 position in one second and still solve
the game of chess in less than a day.


Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
As I've pointed out to you before, it's by no means clear that
quantum computers will help with chess. Quantum computers work
best on tasks that benefit from parallelization and chess doesn't
parallelize very well.

Actually I think solving chess parallelizes well, but not in a way
that helps playing strength much in normal games.

Make a N-Depth tree of all possible moves, all possible replies
to each move, etc. It gets really big as you go deeper, of course.

Assign each resulting position to a computer Have them all search
for a forced win for either side. No communication needed othetr
than "I found it!."

You need much more communication than that, to minimax the results back
up the tree.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Moistened Flower (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ flower but it's moist!

A lot of blabla on those homepages, some of which already unmodified after
funding stopped in year 2000 i guess.

Can you show me a picture of what a quantumcomputer looks like?
One taken with a camera instead of something created in photoshop.

Thanks,
Vincent

"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote in message
...



Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

what type of quantum computers are we talking about,

Start he
http://www.iqc.ca/institute/quantum_computing.php
http://www.toqc.com/TOQCv1_1.pdf
http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~westside/quantum-intro.html

Read this and your head will explode:
http://www.newscientisttech.com/arti...25405.700.html
http://www.physorg.com/news11087.html

the type that exists for 1 / 10000000000000000000000 part of a second?

1/1000 part of a second is plenty.

Assuming that solving chess can be done by searching
multiple positions in parallel for a solution (it is
not clear whether this is true or false), a Quantum
Computer (if one is ever invented) with enough qbits
to solve chess will be able to search for a solution
among 2^N possible solutions in N time.

Thus, a quantum computer that can evaluate
1 position in five milliseconds (my $29.99
LCD handheld can evaluate a positions in
one millisecond) would be able to:

Evaluate 1 position in 5 milliseconds
Evaluate 2 positions in 10 milliseconds
Evaluate 4 positions in 30 milliseconds
Evaluate 8 positions in 40 milliseconds
Evaluate 16 positions in 50 milliseconds
Evaluate 32 positions in 60 milliseconds
Evaluate 64 positions in 70 milliseconds
Evaluate 128 positions in 80 milliseconds
Evaluate 256 positions in 90 milliseconds
Evaluate 512 positions in 100 milliseconds (0.1 second)
...
Evaluate a million (10^6) positions in 0.2 seconds
Evaluate a billion (10^9) positions in 0.3 seconds
Evaluate a trillion (10^12) positions in 0.4 seconds
Evaluate (10^15) positions in 0.8 seconds
Evaluate (10^18) positions in 1.6 seconds
...
Evaluate (10^30) positions in 25 seconds
...
Evaluate (10^36) positions in 100 seconds
...
Evaluate (10^72) positions in 200 seconds
...
Evaluate (10^108) positions in 5 minutes
...and so on.

You could start with quantum computer that can only
evaluate 1 position in one second and still solve
the game of chess in less than a day.


Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
As I've pointed out to you before, it's by no means clear that
quantum computers will help with chess. Quantum computers work
best on tasks that benefit from parallelization and chess doesn't
parallelize very well.

Actually I think solving chess parallelizes well, but not in a way
that helps playing strength much in normal games.

Make a N-Depth tree of all possible moves, all possible replies
to each move, etc. It gets really big as you go deeper, of course.

Assign each resulting position to a computer Have them all search
for a forced win for either side. No communication needed othetr
than "I found it!."

You need much more communication than that, to minimax the results back
up the tree.

Assuming you can store 10^43 during calculations and each quantum can LOOKUP
(like the L1 cache at todays chips),
from the previous allocated 10^42 database at quantum speed the results,
the amount of communication is actually quite limited, other than that each
quantum needs to lookup in that 10^42 database
with old results.

So arguably the amount of communication needed is about 10^42.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Moistened Flower (TM): it's
like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ flower but it's moist!

Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
"David Richerby" wrote:
Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
Assign each resulting position to a computer Have them all search
for a forced win for either side. No communication needed othetr
than "I found it!."

You need much more communication than that, to minimax the results
back up the tree.

Assuming you can store 10^43 during calculations

Store 10^43 of what? Where does that number come from, anyway? How
are you going to store 10^43 things?


and each quantum can LOOKUP

Lookup is very difficult because you can't do that without collapsing
the quantum state, at which point you lose all the parallelism.


[...] quantum speed [...]

This suggests that you have little understanding of quantum computa-
tion. The whole point is massive parallelism, not speed. The phrase
`quantum speed' just doesn't make any sense.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Poisonous Chocolate Windows (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a graphical user interface
that's made of chocolate but it'll
kill you in seconds!