CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Future Of Chess?

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Re : Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Future Of Chess?

In the 1940's there were vacuum tubes and the All American Five. A superheterodyne radio receiver.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Re : Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Future Of Chess?

The difference is that back then, nobody had really realize how important computers would be. Now that they are omnipresent everywhere, it is much different. The day we will not be able to upgrade traditonnal computers, many companies will spend colossal amount of money to develop quantum computers as soon as possible.

Lockheed Martin, for instance, was able to acquire the world's best quantum computer. Some research, showing that quantum computers are much more powerful than what some might think, has also been done : http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/08...g-problem.html

I find it difficult to think that back in the 1940's there was no one who realized the enormous potential of computers (for good, but maybe not so much for ill...). Even go back to Alan Turing, whose mathematical research was before the 1940s, I seem to recall.

The problem with traditional computers for a long time was the size of the machine required. A number of technological developments finally solved that.

One barrier to researching quantum computers as much (or as soon) as it might be done is, as you in a way alluded to, the fact that traditional computers could be deemed useful, or sufficient, by many people (whether or not in governments or large companies) for perhaps decades to come.

[Felix Dumont]

Re : Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Future Of Chess?

The state of quantum computing today is like the state of computing in 1920. The Eniac was built in the 1940's. It will be a while before the quantum computer is a useful thing.

The difference is that back then, nobody had really realize how important computers would be. Now that they are omnipresent everywhere, it is much different. The day we will not be able to upgrade traditonnal computers, many companies will spend colossal amount of money to develop quantum computers as soon as possible.

Lockheed Martin, for instance, was able to acquire the world's best quantum computer. Some research, showing that quantum computers are much more powerful than what some might think, has also been done : http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/08...g-problem.html

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Future Of Chess?

The state of quantum computing today is like the state of computing in 1920. The Eniac was built in the 1940's. It will be a while before the quantum computer is a useful thing.

Back then military necessity made even specialized research that was promising for military application (e.g. inventing a computer for codebreaking) proceed at a frantic pace, with resources lavishly poured in. In todays global economy, and with no large scale war clearly looming, it might take a while indeed for a practical quantum computer to be built.

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Future Of Chess?

The state of quantum computing today is like the state of computing in 1920. The Eniac was built in the 1940's. It will be a while before the quantum computer is a useful thing.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Future Of Chess?

Don't know how much has changed since June, but the link below indicates that no one back then knew how to build a practical quantum computer:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0607154138.htm

[Felix Dumont]

Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Futur

the people in this thread who think chess will be solved (in the sense of absolute solving) are bad at math.

Never mind the limits of computational speed that is enough to kill the idea of solving chess, even if you managed to do that, you couldn't store the information. Constructing a 32 man tablebase would cover of order 10^120 move orders (google "shannnon number"). The number of atoms on the earth is of order 10^50 so even at storing 1 move per atom, you need 10^70 earths. (in fact, more than the number of estimated atoms in the observable unirverse). It's not going to happen.

Or have some basic knowledge of quantum information ;)

Computer science and physics have evolved a lot since the 70s, and such estimations are no longer valid.

Quantum computers do exist, although they are not that powerful for the moment. I've talked with several professors in this field, and solving chess is one of their goals, and there is no doubt that it is just a matter of time...
Yale's team in quantum computer has made considerable advances recently, and I guess we should be able to read papers from them very soon.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Future Of Chess?

There is no certainty in quantum computing...

:-)

good one. +1

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Future Of Chess?

There is no certainty in quantum computing...

True, if you mean that it's still just a theoretical possibility...

[Kerry Liles]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Future Of Chess?

Based on a google search I just did, the first page of results shown seemed to indicate there was no consensus of certainty about whether even quantum computing could be used to solve chess.

There is no certainty in quantum computing...

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Future Of Chess?

Based on a google search I just did, the first page of results shown seemed to indicate there was no consensus of certainty about whether even quantum computing could be used to solve chess.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Future Of

I
Solving chess - Still many moves must be made that an opening would meet an endgame tablebase. Computers stuck at the 7-piece endgame.

the people in this thread who think chess will be solved (in the sense of absolute solving) are bad at math.

Never mind the limits of computational speed that is enough to kill the idea of solving chess, even if you managed to do that, you couldn't store the information. Constructing a 32 man tablebase would cover of order 10^120 move orders (google "shannnon number"). The number of atoms on the earth is of order 10^50 so even at storing 1 move per atom, you need 10^70 earths. (in fact, more than the number of estimated atoms in the observable unirverse). It's not going to happen.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Future Of

It actually made a huge difference for checkers. The problem is not only with players, but also with sponsors and media.

I think checkers were dead a long time ago even before they were solved.

Solving chess - Still many moves must be made that an opening would meet an endgame tablebase. Computers stuck at the 7-piece endgame.

Even the simplest game, tic-tac-toe, which can be solved without a computer, is still played in playgrounds :)

[Felix Dumont]

Re : Re: Re : Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Future Of Ches

Why is it significant that checkers is solved game? Yes, to computer scientists it is a pretty exciting result. But to normal people, I can't see how it matters at all. The solution requires a table with 50 billion billion (500,000,000,000,000,000,000) positions in it. I would contend that no human could ever make practical advantage of the solved checkers game. Computers can deal with a table with 10^20. Chess is far worse. You need to have storage for 10^40 positions. Heck, I can't remember more than about 4 or 5 moves into most openings. No one will commit 10^40 positions to memory.

So I just don't think it matters at all if chess is "solved". Practically speaking, it made little or no difference to checkers. The solution of the checkers problem took 20 years (give or take a year of two). How long would it take to solve chess? I'll bet it is a huge number. Not just right around the corner.

It actually made a huge difference for checkers. The problem is not only with players, but also with sponsors and media. Chess has lost a lot of its coverage since computers are better than humans. It will definitely have a huge impact on chess when it will be solved, even though it doesn't change much (except if we can find a way to win for white!).

Also, according to Moore's law, the strength of computers double every year. Since the transistors are now close to the size of an atom, new computers are needed. These new computers, called quantum computers, are definitely more efficient at calculating, and should solve chess much faster than we could expect.

[Steve Karpik]

Re: Re : Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest -What Is The Future Of Chess?

Sadly, chess should be solved by computers in a couple of years. Estimates usually range from 10 to 20 years, maximum... People will still be able to play, as no one can really learn all the variations by heart, but it will definitely relegate chess as a solved game, like checkers...

Why is it significant that checkers is solved game? Yes, to computer scientists it is a pretty exciting result. But to normal people, I can't see how it matters at all. The solution requires a table with 50 billion billion (500,000,000,000,000,000,000) positions in it. I would contend that no human could ever make practical advantage of the solved checkers game. Computers can deal with a table with 10^20. Chess is far worse. You need to have storage for 10^40 positions. Heck, I can't remember more than about 4 or 5 moves into most openings. No one will commit 10^40 positions to memory.

So I just don't think it matters at all if chess is "solved". Practically speaking, it made little or no difference to checkers. The solution of the checkers problem took 20 years (give or take a year of two). How long would it take to solve chess? I'll bet it is a huge number. Not just right around the corner.