Solving chess

Date: 21 Jan 2007 13:55:34
From: entrokey
Subject: Solving chess

Is anyone here interested in solving chess for a guaranteed win, loss,
or draw?

Date: 02 Feb 2007 12:10:28
From: entrokey [email protected]
Subject: Re: Solving chess

On Feb 2, 5:18 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi everybody, if anyone is still interested in this subject of
> > solving chess. I realize that I am a sophist and 10^40 is a large
> > number. However, is anyone interested in creating a network similar
> > to GIMPS, zetagrid? At least I would like to verify that coding
> > equations are efficient. I have asked you guys before about the
> > encoding of EGDBs and you were very helpful. Can someone explain how
> > chess computers efficiently evaluate moves?
>
> Google for something like `chess engine programming tutorial'.
>
> However, with respect, I would suggest that somebody who doesn't even
> have a basic grasp of how chess engines work is not the ideal choice
> for the position of leader of a networked attempt to solve chess.
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Old-Fashioned Whisky (TM): it's likewww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a single-malt whisky but it's perfect
> for your grandparents!

You're absolutely right about all that. Thanks for the advice.

Date: 01 Feb 2007 17:41:05
From:
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Hi everybody, if anyone is still interested in this subject of solving
chess. I realize that I am a sophist and 10^40 is a large number.
However, is anyone interested in creating a network similar to GIMPS,
zetagrid? At least I would like to verify that coding equations are
efficient. I have asked you guys before about the encoding of EGDBs
and you were very helpful. Can someone explain how chess computers
efficiently evaluate moves?

Date: 02 Feb 2007 10:18:14
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving chess

<[email protected] > wrote:
> Hi everybody, if anyone is still interested in this subject of
> solving chess. I realize that I am a sophist and 10^40 is a large
> number. However, is anyone interested in creating a network similar
> to GIMPS, zetagrid? At least I would like to verify that coding
> equations are efficient. I have asked you guys before about the
> encoding of EGDBs and you were very helpful. Can someone explain how
> chess computers efficiently evaluate moves?

Google for something like `chess engine programming tutorial'.

However, with respect, I would suggest that somebody who doesn't even
have a basic grasp of how chess engines work is not the ideal choice
for the position of leader of a networked attempt to solve chess.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Whisky (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a single-malt whisky but it's perfect
for your grandparents!

Date: 02 Feb 2007 20:08:07
From: Vincent Diepeveen
Subject: Re: Solving chess

He's more than qualified to do that if he's a very patient guy, lives very
healthy and especially is very young.
That last requirement because according to my extrapolation (which is based
upon doubling in speed by factor 2 of
cpu's each 18 months), he'll manage his job around the year 2066, which
still is a milennium sooner before your
praised quantum computer gives the ultimate answer to life, a total
uninteresting question, as we already know the answer
will be 42.

So in short to his challenge in life, there will be a chance he lives when
the deadline gets achieved. Your odds there are far worse,
as even when you believe you reincarnate to a blessed donkey, your odds
still are 0%.

Vincent

"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:gUb*[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi everybody, if anyone is still interested in this subject of
>> solving chess. I realize that I am a sophist and 10^40 is a large
>> number. However, is anyone interested in creating a network similar
>> to GIMPS, zetagrid? At least I would like to verify that coding
>> equations are efficient. I have asked you guys before about the
>> encoding of EGDBs and you were very helpful. Can someone explain how
>> chess computers efficiently evaluate moves?
>
> Google for something like `chess engine programming tutorial'.
>
> However, with respect, I would suggest that somebody who doesn't even
> have a basic grasp of how chess engines work is not the ideal choice
> for the position of leader of a networked attempt to solve chess.
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Old-Fashioned Whisky (TM): it's
> like
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a single-malt whisky but it's
> perfect
> for your grandparents!

Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Date: 22 Jan 2007 22:11:46
From:
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
> <[email protected]> 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

Date: 23 Jan 2007 15:59:37
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: Solving chess

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
>> <[email protected]> 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.

Date: 22 Jan 2007 23:17:58
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: Solving chess

On 21 Jan 2007 13:55:34 -0800, "entrokey" <[email protected] > wrote:

>Is anyone here interested in solving chess for a guaranteed win, loss,
>or draw?

Maybe 6 or 7 years ago I firmly believed that chess would be solved.
Now computers which are more powerful than ever are showing that maybe
chess can't be solved. Strange how it seems to turn out that way.

EZoto

Date: 22 Jan 2007 14:26:29
From: entrokey [email protected]
Subject: Re: Solving chess

This is not the first time I have brought up this question to a group.
Thanks for the thoughtful answers.
In any event, is anyone interested in finding "the fastest general way"
to solve chess?
Not a particularly interesting question but a mathematical one I wanted
to work on.
Thanks,

Date: 23 Jan 2007 10:54:54
From: Vincent Diepeveen
Subject: Re: Solving chess

hi Entrokey,

there is 2 approaches:
a) by extreme rude approximation trying to find the best move
b) exact solution

For exact solution you'll need 10^45 calculations, whatever your plans are.

The first thing is what the chess engines are doing with big success
currently,
though in the opening they still are the same infantiles like 10 years ago.

Vincent

"entrokey [email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This is not the first time I have brought up this question to a group.
> Thanks for the thoughtful answers.
> In any event, is anyone interested in finding "the fastest general way"
> to solve chess?
> Not a particularly interesting question but a mathematical one I wanted
> to work on.
> Thanks,
>

Date: 23 Jan 2007 11:45:00
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Vincent Diepeveen <[email protected] > wrote:
> there is 2 approaches:
> a) by extreme rude approximation trying to find the best move
> b) exact solution

Approximation doesn't work for *solving* chess because your
approximation might discard the unique winning move or the unique
defending move.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Revolting Chair (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ chair but it'll turn your stomach!

Date: 23 Jan 2007 12:55:27
From: Vincent Diepeveen
Subject: Re: Solving chess

highly unlikely.

even in the EGTBs it appeared that all the lemma's of the big old guys who
were tactical at 1800 level,
that their analysis were correct.

if you get some 80 ply search in far endgame in selective manner, odds you
miss something is near zero.

"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:0ah*[email protected]...
> Vincent Diepeveen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> there is 2 approaches:
>> a) by extreme rude approximation trying to find the best move
>> b) exact solution
>
> Approximation doesn't work for *solving* chess because your
> approximation might discard the unique winning move or the unique
> defending move.
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Revolting Chair (TM): it's
> like a
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ chair but it'll turn your
> stomach!

Date: 23 Jan 2007 13:08:32
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Vincent Diepeveen <[email protected] > wrote:
> "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Vincent Diepeveen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> there is 2 approaches:
>>> a) by extreme rude approximation trying to find the best move
>>> b) exact solution
>>
>> Approximation doesn't work for *solving* chess because your
>> approximation might discard the unique winning move or the unique
>> defending move.
>
> highly unlikely.
>
> if you get some 80 ply search in far endgame in selective manner,
> odds you miss something is near zero.

Unless you have demonstrated that no possible move changes the
evaluation, you haven't `solved chess'. Sure, with an 80-ply search,
you'll be able to play near-perfect chess but you haven't `solved
chess'. (Unless it turns out that, from the initial position, one of
the players can win by move 40.) It's not a probabilistic thing.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Portable Soap (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ personal hygiene product but you can
take it anywhere!

Date: 22 Jan 2007 12:22:36
From:
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
> hi John,
>
> Depends upon your patience and what age you plan to reach.
> 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.
>
> Note that it is quite questionable whether that law of Moore holds true.
>
> Vincent

Yes, very questionable indeed since Moore's law is not only a
theoretical one but also a physical one. How small can electronics get?
Sub-atomic? Possibly -- I have no idea.

But you only refer to hardware speed. What about storage, which is just
as important for solving this problem?

And I'll be very pleased if I make it to 2050. :-)

jm

Date: 22 Jan 2007 16:10:50
From: Ray Johnstone
Subject: Re: Solving chess

On 21 Jan 2007 13:55:34 -0800, "entrokey" <[email protected] > wrote:

>Is anyone here interested in solving chess for a guaranteed win, loss,
>or draw?
I think it can't be done, now or ever. See:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/Chessgames.htm

[email protected]
www.iinet.com.au/~ray

Date: 22 Jan 2007 09:06:35
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Ray Johnstone wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2007 13:55:34 -0800, "entrokey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Is anyone here interested in solving chess for a guaranteed win, loss,
>>or draw?
>
> I think it can't be done, now or ever. See:
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/Chessgames.htm
>
> [email protected]
> www.iinet.com.au/~ray

That paper discusses the number of legal moves but to a game could be
trucated a lot quicker than that. Put a queen+king vs king on a board
and they could move randomly for 50 moves before there is a draw. But
there is a forced mate in 12 or so. An endgame tablebase will find that
move, sequence. Hence I think the numbers given are gross
over-estimates. So it might be a lot more soluble than those papers
would suggest.

--
Dave (from the UK)

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.

http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/ - a Free open-source Chess Database

Date: 21 Jan 2007 22:59:41
From:
Subject: Re: Solving chess

entrokey wrote:
> Is anyone here interested in solving chess for a guaranteed win, loss,
> or draw?

Many people are. However, the final solution is a LONG way away.

Almost three years ago, it took one dedicated person about 5 months of
top-of-the-line CPU power and about 2 TB of data just to solve all
possible combinations of positions with just six pieces on the board
(including the two Kings).

Solving for all 32 pieces? Definitely won't happen in our lifetimes....

jm

Date: 22 Jan 2007 23:31:27
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: Solving chess

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> entrokey wrote:
>> Is anyone here interested in solving chess for a guaranteed win, loss,
>> or draw?
>
> Many people are. However, the final solution is a LONG way away.
>
> Almost three years ago, it took one dedicated person about 5 months of
> top-of-the-line CPU power and about 2 TB of data just to solve all
> possible combinations of positions with just six pieces on the board
> (including the two Kings).
>
> 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.

Date: 23 Jan 2007 11:51:56
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Ange1o DePa1ma <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> 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).

Dave.

--
David Richerby Hilarious Tool (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ hammer but it's a bundle of laughs!

Date: 23 Jan 2007 16:19:58
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Date: 23 Jan 2007 16:09:44
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: Solving chess

"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:iRj*[email protected]...
> Ange1o DePa1ma <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> 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.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 09:33:46
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving chess

In article <[email protected] >,
Ange1o DePa1ma <[email protected] > wrote:
>"David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:iRj*[email protected]...
>> Ange1o DePa1ma <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> <[email protected]> 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!

Date: 24 Jan 2007 20:34:37
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: Solving chess

"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:U7v*[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Ange1o DePa1ma <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:iRj*[email protected]...
>>> Ange1o DePa1ma <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> <[email protected]> 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.

You're right. Solving chess would mean "mate in 143" at move one. We'll
probably never get there. I'm sure a mathematician could estimate how large
such a database would have to be. Probably on the order of a number of
processors for calculating it, or bytes for storing it equal to "all the
atoms in the universe."

It would be difficult to solve even to a full knight advantage, and even if
we did it would take tremendous computing power to calculate even those
positions to mate -- solving them, essentially. But you don't need a full
knight's compensation to solve chess for *practical* purposes. You only need
a winning advantage.

Date: 22 Jan 2007 11:09:36
From: Vincent Diepeveen
Subject: Re: Solving chess

hi John,

Depends upon your patience and what age you plan to reach.
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.

Note that it is quite questionable whether that law of Moore holds true.

Vincent

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> entrokey wrote:
>> Is anyone here interested in solving chess for a guaranteed win, loss,
>> or draw?
>
> Many people are. However, the final solution is a LONG way away.
>
> Almost three years ago, it took one dedicated person about 5 months of
> top-of-the-line CPU power and about 2 TB of data just to solve all
> possible combinations of positions with just six pieces on the board
> (including the two Kings).
>
> Solving for all 32 pieces? Definitely won't happen in our lifetimes....
>
> jm
>

Date: 23 Jan 2007 09:36:29
From: Guy Macom
Subject: Re: Solving chess

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.

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

Date: 24 Jan 2007 17:23:34
From: Simon Krahnke
Subject: Re: Solving chess

* David Richerby <[email protected] > (12:41) schrieb:

> 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.

What minimax values?

mfg, simon .... l

Date: 23 Jan 2007 11:48:14
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Guy Macom <"http://www.guymacon.com/" > wrote:
^^^^^^^^^
You've mis-spelled your name in your From: header.

> 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.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Sumerian Sushi (TM): it's like a raw
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fish that's really old!

Date: 24 Jan 2007 10:36:43
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Solving chess

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/ >

Date: 24 Jan 2007 11:41:11
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving chess

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!

Date: 26 Jan 2007 11:07:06
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Solving chess

David Richerby wrote:
>
>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.

Why would you want to minimax? What information does each computer
require other than the starting position? What does it need to tell
other computers ther than "Im found a forced win"? You are doing an
exhaustive search of an entire tree, not alpha-beta pruning.

Each computer simply searches the tree from the position given
to it, communicating only when/if it finds a forced win for either
side from that position. No other communication is required.

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

Date: 26 Jan 2007 12:18:10
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > 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.
>
> Why would you want to minimax? What information does each computer
> require other than the starting position? What does it need to tell
> other computers ther than "Im found a forced win"?

Oh, sorry. You're right. The search computers just communicate `yea'
or `nay' back to the central computer and that does the minimax
internally.

Or, in a desperate attempt to prove that I was right along, I could
claim that I meant that the computers need to say which side had the
win, as well as that there was a win. :-)

Dave.

--
David Richerby Technicolor Chocolate Dictator (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a totalitarian leader
that's made of chocolate but it's in
realistic colour!

Date: 30 Jan 2007 15:05:27
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Solving chess

David Richerby wrote:

>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> 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.
>>
>> Why would you want to minimax? What information does each computer
>> require other than the starting position? What does it need to tell
>> other computers ther than "Im found a forced win"?
>
>Oh, sorry. You're right. The search computers just communicate `yea'
>or `nay' back to the central computer and that does the minimax
>internally.
>
>Or, in a desperate attempt to prove that I was right along, I could
>claim that I meant that the computers need to say which side had the
>win, as well as that there was a win. :-)

Admitting an error rather than flaming? That's not the Usenet way! :)

Date: 24 Jan 2007 15:09:26
From: Vincent Diepeveen
Subject: Re: Solving chess

"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:3jh*[email protected]...
> 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!

Date: 24 Jan 2007 14:28:43
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Vincent Diepeveen <[email protected] > wrote:
>"David Richerby" <[email protected]> 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!

Date: 26 Jan 2007 16:26:30
From: Vincent Diepeveen
Subject: Re: Solving chess

A processor is as good as its caches are,
if a quantum computer cannot do level1 nor level2 lookups, let alone RAM
lookups,
then it will always remain a paper computer of course, even 1000 years from
now.

Vincent

"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:-cB*[email protected]...
> Vincent Diepeveen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"David Richerby" <[email protected]> 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!

Date: 30 Jan 2007 15:07:32
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>A processor is as good as its caches are,
>if a quantum computer cannot do level1 nor level2 lookups,
>let alone RAM lookups, then it will always remain a paper
>computer of course, even 1000 years from now.

You might wish to learn what a quantum computer is before
making such comments.

Date: 30 Jan 2007 20:45:44
From: Vincent Diepeveen
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Ah now comes the usual question i ask to quantum computer promotors:

PLEASE SHOW ME A PHOTO OF A QUANTUM COMPUTER

If you can't even show a photo of how the quantum chip looks like then we're
at least a 1000 years away from such toys.

All what gets shown on those homepages is what some scientist doodled within
5 minutes in photoshop.

Of course no more than 5 minutes was invested into that project, the rest of
all the writing was just paper work to get funded :)

Thanks,
Vincent

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>A processor is as good as its caches are,
>>if a quantum computer cannot do level1 nor level2 lookups,
>>let alone RAM lookups, then it will always remain a paper
>>computer of course, even 1000 years from now.
>
> You might wish to learn what a quantum computer is before
> making such comments.
>
>

Date: 31 Jan 2007 12:12:22
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Vincent Diepeveen <[email protected] > wrote:
> Ah now comes the usual question i ask to quantum computer promotors:
>
> PLEASE SHOW ME A PHOTO OF A QUANTUM COMPUTER

Well, you can stop asking, now.

http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/pr.nsf/pages/news.20011219_quantum.html

> If you can't even show a photo of how the quantum chip looks like
> then we're at least a 1000 years away from such toys.

In 1950, I couldn't show you a photograph of a microprocessor.
Therefore, there will be no desktop computers before 2950. Oh, hang
on...

There really isn't any point discussing this with you, is there?

Dave.

--
David Richerby Gigantic Sushi (TM): it's like a raw
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fish but it's huge!

Date: 31 Jan 2007 16:04:42
From: Vincent Diepeveen
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Actually that isn't a photo of any kind;
that is another 5 minutes of work in photoshop that someone did do in order
to let his 'quantum research' get funded,
exactly as i said.

When i came to the internet in 1993, people were talking about quantum
computers as
"the final solution to all our computing problems".

Anyway in the year 3007 scientist David Bratwurst ships back to the
microsoft corp, which like all elite is located at planet Windows,
in far past called planet s, that in space station Supernerd he managed
to get quantum computing to work.

Microsoft CEO Bill XXII immediately responds to the 3 dimensional chat,
despite his high age of 100,
and asks for a photo from the quantums at work.

At which David responds that it "doesn't work exactly like that".

Patiently Bill asks again whether his 100 trillion of investments in that
spacelab, because of its huge size of 30 kilometer in diameter and the huge
own fusion reactor it has, did produce something else that could be shown.

David then responds that he had given a math sum to the quantum computer,
which of course connected to a fuzzy logic artificial intelligent brain had
given as output: 42

Bill asks whether he had verified the result.

Of course David garantueed him that the second time he gave the machine a
sum the fuzzy logic artificial intelligent brain had again assured him: "the
answer's 42".

Vincent

"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:AQh*[email protected]...
> Vincent Diepeveen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ah now comes the usual question i ask to quantum computer promotors:
>>
>> PLEASE SHOW ME A PHOTO OF A QUANTUM COMPUTER
>
> Well, you can stop asking, now.
>
> http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/pr.nsf/pages/news.20011219_quantum.html
>
>
>> If you can't even show a photo of how the quantum chip looks like
>> then we're at least a 1000 years away from such toys.
>
> In 1950, I couldn't show you a photograph of a microprocessor.
> Therefore, there will be no desktop computers before 2950. Oh, hang
> on...
>
> There really isn't any point discussing this with you, is there?
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Gigantic Sushi (TM): it's like a
> raw
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fish but it's huge!

Date: 01 Feb 2007 14:35:06
From:
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>David Richerby wrote...
>>
>> Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>
>>> PLEASE SHOW ME A PHOTO OF A QUANTUM COMPUTER
>>
>> Well, you can stop asking, now.
>>
>> http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/pr.nsf/pages/news.20011219_quantum.html

>Actually that isn't a photo of any kind;
>that is another 5 minutes of work in photoshop that someone
>did do in order to let his 'quantum research' get funded,
>exactly as i said.

You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As we
say in Texas, you couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions
printed on the heel. You are a canker, an open wound. I would rather
kiss a lawyer than be seen with you. You took your last vacation in
the Islets of Langerhans.

You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little
worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a
cad, and a weasel. I take that back; you are a festering pustule on a
weasel's rump. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench,
a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.

I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same
species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at
the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut.
Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are
a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. You are a technicolor yawn.
And did I mention that you smell?

You are a squeaking rat, a mistake of nature and a heavy-metal bagpipe
player. You were not born. You were hatched into an unwilling world
that rejects the likes of you. You didn't crawl out of a normal egg,
either, but rather a mutant maggot egg rejected by an evil scientist
as being below his low standards. Your alleged parents abandoned you
at birth and then died of shame in recognition of what they had done
to an unsuspecting world. They were a bit late.

Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting
to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a
nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able
to access it ever so much more rapidly. If cluelessness were crude
oil, your scalp would be crawling with caribou.

You are a thick-headed trog. I have seen skeet with more sense than
you have. You are a few bricks short of a full load, a few cards short
of a full deck, a few bytes short of a full core dump, and a few
chromosomes short of a full human. Worse than that, you top-post. God
created houseflies, cockroaches, maggots, mosquitos, fleas, ticks,
slugs, leeches, and intestinal parasites, then he lowered his
standards and made you. I take it back; God didn't make you. You are
Satan's spawn. You are Evil beyond comprehension, half-living in the
slough of despair. You are the entropy which will claim us all. You
are a green-nostriled, crossed eyed, hairy-livered inbred
trout-defiler. You make Ebola look good.

You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid,
nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an
ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with
you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in
a land that reality forgot. You are not ANSI compliant and your kup
doesn't validate. You have a couple of address lines shorted together.
You should be promoted to Engineering Manager.

Do you really expect your delusional and incoherent ramblings to be
read? Everyone plonked you long ago. Do you fantasize that your
tantrums and conniption fits could possibly be worth the $0.000000001
worth of electricity used to send them? Your life is one big
W.O.M.B.A.T. and your future doesn't look promising either. We need to
trace your bloodline and terminate all siblings and cousins in order
to cleanse humanity of your polluted genes. The good news is that no
normal human would ever mate with you, so we won't have to go into the
sewers in search of your git.

You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a
loathsome disease, a drooling inbred cross-eyed toesucker. You make
Quakers shout and strike Pentecostals silent. You have a version 1.0
mind in a version 6.12 world. Your mother had to tie a pork chop
around your neck just to get your dog to play with you. You think
that HTTP://WWW.GUYMACON.COM/FUN/INSULT/INDEX.HTM is the name of a
rock band. You believe that P.D.Q. Bach is the greatest composer who
ever lived. You prefer L. Ron Hubbard to Larry Niven and Jerry
Pournelle. Hee-Haw is too deep for you. You would watch test patterns
all day if the other inmates would let you.

On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are
deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of
wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted.
Spammers look down on you. Phone sex operators hang up on you.
Teleketers refuse to be seen in public with you. You are the source
of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go.
May you choke on your own foolish opinions. You are a Pusillanimous
galactophage and you wear your sister's training bra. Don't bother
opening the door when you leave - you should be able to slime your
way out underneath. I hope that when you get home your mother runs
out from under the porch and bites you.

You smy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off, pillock.
You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted
boggish foot-licking half-twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker. You
gormless crook-pated tosser. You bloody churlish boil-brained clotpole
ponce. You craven dewberry pisshead cockup pratting naff. You cockered
bum-bailey poofter. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You
dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill. May your
spouse be blessed with many bastards.

You are so clueless that if you dressed in a clue skin, doused yourself
in clue musk, and did the clue dance in the middle of a field of horny
clues at the height of clue mating season, you still would not have a
clue. If you were a movie you would be a double feature;
_Battlefield_Earth_ and _Moron_Movies_II_. You would be out of focus.

You are a fiend and a sniveling coward, and you have bad breath. You
are the unholy spawn of a bandy-legged hobo and a syphilitic camel.
You wear strangely mismatched clothing with oddly placed stains. You
are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just knowing that
you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would go
away. You are jetsam who dreams of becoming flotsam. You won't make
it. I beg for sweet death to come and remove me from a world which
became unbearable when you crawled out of a harpy's lair.

It is hard to believe how incredibly stupid you are. Stupid as a stone
that the other stones make fun of. So stupid that you have traveled
far beyond stupid as we know it and into a new dimension of stupid.
Meta-stupid. Stupid cubed. Trans-stupid stupid. Stupid collapsed to
a singularity where even the stupons have collapsed into stuponium.
Stupid so dense that no intelligence can escape. Singularity stupid.
Blazing hot summer day on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one
minute than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. It cannot
be possible that anything in our universe can really be this stupid.
This is a primordial fragment from the original big stupid bang. A pure
extract of stupid with absolute stupid purity. Stupid beyond the laws
of nature. I must apologize. I can't go on. This is my epiphany of
stupid. After this experience, you may not hear from me for a while.
I don't think that I can summon the strength left to mock your moronic
opinions and malformed comments about boring trivia or your other
drivel. Duh.

The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped
away most of your of what you wrote, because, well ... it didn't
really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was
pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a
load of babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after
you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more
success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal"
people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering.
But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this
world who find these things to be difficult. If I had known that this
was true in your case then I would have never have exposed myself to
what you wrote. It just wouldn't have been "right." Sort of like
parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the
emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a
demand on you.

P.S.: You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful,
cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable,
belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal,
fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic,
brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame,
self-righteous, byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent,
libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless, EDLINoid,
illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, evasive, double-talking,
devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, paternalistic,
fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased,
suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, dim,
crazy, weird, dyspeptic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim,
unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive,
mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive,
abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, and Generally Not Good.

I hope this helps...

Date: 01 Feb 2007 11:48:23
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Vincent Diepeveen <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Vincent Diepeveen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> PLEASE SHOW ME A PHOTO OF A QUANTUM COMPUTER
>>
>> http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/pr.nsf/pages/news.20011219_quantum.html
>
> Actually that isn't a photo of any kind; that is another 5 minutes
> of work in photoshop that someone did do in order to let his
> 'quantum research' get funded, exactly as i said.

Well, if you're going to assert that every photograph of a quantum
computer is faked, it's not really surprising that you've never seen
one.

*plonk*

Dave.

--
David Richerby Addictive Projector (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ 16mm film projector but you can never
put it down!

Date: 26 Jan 2007 16:36:30
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Vincent Diepeveen <[email protected] > wrote:
> A processor is as good as its caches are, if a quantum computer
> cannot do level1 nor level2 lookups, let alone RAM lookups, then it
> will always remain a paper computer of course, even 1000 years from
> now.

``A chariot is only as good as the horses that pull it. If a motor
car cannot be pulled by two or four horses, let alone six, then it
will always remain a paper vehicle of course, even 1000 years from
now.''

Dave.

--
David Richerby Mentholated Adult Hat (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a hat that you won't want the children
to see but it's invigorating!

Date: 30 Jan 2007 20:49:48
From: Vincent Diepeveen
Subject: Re: Solving chess

[snip - the usual Quantum Computer bla bla that comes back each few weeks in
computerchess]

"If you were plowing a field, which would you rather use? Two strong oxen or
1024 chickens?"
Seymour Cray

Date: 31 Jan 2007 12:06:07
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Vincent Diepeveen <[email protected] > wrote:
> [snip - the usual Quantum Computer bla bla that comes back each few
> weeks in computerchess]
>
> "If you were plowing a field, which would you rather use? Two strong
> oxen or 1024 chickens?"
> Seymour Cray

Er... A tractor?

Dave.

--
David Richerby Evil Gerbil (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ children's pet but it's genuinely
evil!

Date: 23 Jan 2007 12:56:19
From: Vincent Diepeveen
Subject: Re: Solving chess

what type of quantum computers are we talking about,
the type that exists for 1 / 10000000000000000000000 part of a second?

Vincent

"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:sei*[email protected]...
> Guy Macom <"http://www.guymacon.com/"> wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^
> You've mis-spelled your name in your From: header.
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Sumerian Sushi (TM): it's like a
> raw
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fish that's really old!

Date: 24 Jan 2007 10:54:17
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Solving chess

Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>what type of quantum computers are we talking about,

Start here:
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/article/mg18925405.700.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/ >

Date: 24 Jan 2007 15:06:28
From: Vincent Diepeveen
Subject: Re: Solving chess

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
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>what type of quantum computers are we talking about,
>
> Start here:
> 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/article/mg18925405.700.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/>
>

Date: 22 Jan 2007 02:22:11
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Solving chess

entrokey wrote:
> Is anyone here interested in solving chess for a guaranteed win, loss,
> or draw?
>

A guaranteed loss is very easy:

"I resign"

In theory it can be solved, but in practice it needs more computing
power than is currently available and is likely to be available in the
forseable future.

--
Dave (from the UK)

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.

http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/ - a Free open-source Chess Database