TalkChess.com

James Constance wrote:http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070716/ ... 16-13.html

You can read more hear, it's been the buzz all day!

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 289#132289

It is completely pointless to speculate about what might or might not happen between 2060-2070.
Today's ChessBase article stresses the differences between checkers and chess, including:

The big difference is the number of positions possible in each game: 1020 for checkers and 1040 for chess. To get some idea of this, if a computer could solve checkers completely in one nanosecond (a single cycle of a 1 GHz computer), it would take this computer 3000 years to solve chess.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3997

dj wrote:It is completely pointless to speculate about what might or might not happen between 2060-2070.
Today's ChessBase article stresses the differences between checkers and chess, including:

The big difference is the number of positions possible in each game: 1020 for checkers and 1040 for chess. To get some idea of this, if a computer could solve checkers completely in one nanosecond (a single cycle of a 1 GHz computer), it would take this computer 3000 years to solve chess.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3997

It may or may not be pointless to speculate, but it's a safe bet you won't be around to see if it comes to pass that far off in the future.

There is a point though, trimming all useless moves from chess, and using some of the techniques Jonathan used with checkers, (focusing on wins), could be applied to chess, but on hardware that far exceeds the hardware used today.

New technology must be invented. Computers today have no chance to be able to handle such an undertaking.

Canada will invent that technology

Prescience Regards,
Terry

James Constance wrote:http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070716/ ... 16-13.html

that 2060 stuff shows such an incredible lack of comprehension that it really doesn't deserve a comment at all. It is a ridiculous statement. Only down-side is that I doubt I will live long enough for the idiocy of that statement to be proven. I'm almost 60 now. I'd need to live past 120 to see that fallacy put to rest...

chess won't be solved by 2060. Or even 2160.

bob wrote:

James Constance wrote:http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070716/ ... 16-13.html

that 2060 stuff shows such an incredible lack of comprehension that it really doesn't deserve a comment at all. It is a ridiculous statement. Only down-side is that I doubt I will live long enough for the idiocy of that statement to be proven. I'm almost 60 now. I'd need to live past 120 to see that fallacy put to rest...

chess won't be solved by 2060. Or even 2160.

Robert..Never say Never! I think throwing out a number like that was irresponsibly stupid as well, but we don't know when or exactly how chess will be solved. However, I do believe it's possible with the right technology and methods.

Terry

A quantum computer would solve chess in seconds, no? So all it would take is to build a quantum computer, is that going to take 60 years? I don't think so, I would think we'd have a quantum computer sooner than that.

The good news is that in 60 years I'd be only 84 years old.

bob wrote:

James Constance wrote:http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070716/ ... 16-13.html

that 2060 stuff shows such an incredible lack of comprehension that it really doesn't deserve a comment at all. It is a ridiculous statement. Only down-side is that I doubt I will live long enough for the idiocy of that statement to be proven. I'm almost 60 now. I'd need to live past 120 to see that fallacy put to rest...

chess won't be solved by 2060. Or even 2160.

One standard of considering a game "solved" is that an optimal move, in the sense never converting a won position into a draw or a draw into a loss, can be determined for every reachable position. This standard has not been achieved in checkers. They have "only" shown that with best possible play the result is a draw.

Proving chess to be a draw is probably also much easier than creating a full 32-piece set of tablebases. A certain draw for chess may be easy enough that it is eventually proved, but I am amazed such an exact time frame for success would be suggested.

Leto wrote:A quantum computer would solve chess in seconds, no? So all it would take is to build a quantum computer, is that going to take 60 years? I don't think so, I would think we'd have a quantum computer sooner than that.

The good news is that in 60 years I'd be only 84 years old.

A quantum computer/s will be needed. How long it will take will still require time. How much time is not known.

Canada is the leader in the pioneering of quantum computing.

Canada is very advanced technologically.

We also played an important role in aiding the US to reach the moon.

And don't forget the Canada Arm used on shuttle missions

Terry McCracken wrote:

bob wrote:

James Constance wrote:http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070716/ ... 16-13.html

that 2060 stuff shows such an incredible lack of comprehension that it really doesn't deserve a comment at all. It is a ridiculous statement. Only down-side is that I doubt I will live long enough for the idiocy of that statement to be proven. I'm almost 60 now. I'd need to live past 120 to see that fallacy put to rest...

chess won't be solved by 2060. Or even 2160.

Robert..Never say Never! I think throwing out a number like that was irresponsibly stupid as well, but we don't know when or exactly how chess will be solved. However, I do believe it's possible with the right technology and methods.

Terry

Simply not possible with any conceivable approach. More chess positions than atoms in the universe, by a _large_ margin. Even using quantum states to store multiple bits per atom would not be possible as there are not enough states.

This is something that simply is not going to happen. Even a density of one billion times one billion times greater than today's chips won't even come close...