Checkers Solved - Chess around year 2060-2070!

[Terry McCracken]

I don't follow your math. 10^50 bits requires at least 10^50 atoms, although in your case this appears to average 12.5 atoms per bit if I understand your measure correctly. You are way beyond the number of atoms in planet earth at that number.

The issue would become one of size. No way to run at sub-picosecond clock speeds with a storage device far larger than planet earth. just using 8K miles is daunting, as 8K miles = 8,000 * 5280, which if my math works turns into 40 million feet. Or 40 million nanoseconds to propagate any sort of energy. That is 40 thousand microseconds, or 40 milliseconds. Not very fast. that's one of the limiting issues when we start down the slippery slope of such a large storage device... If it is big enough, it will be too slow. If it is fast enough, it will be too small.

I'm actually assuming eight atoms per bit. Eight 12.5 dalton atoms or 100 daltons per bit. Estimates for the number of atoms in the
Earth I've found are very close to 10^50. Incidentally, you were a bit unfair in saying 2^160 is about 10^50, it's actually 1.46x10^48. This brings the required mass down to only a few times that of the moon.

It was my concern over the slowness caused by the physical size of the table that led to my final mention of the life span of the Universe. Its hard for me to estimate how much multiple copies and local caches would help, or indeed how long the Universe will last, so I'm not certain of the computability. My guess is it's possible, but that's only a guess.

Based on sensible math, this simply won't ever be feasible.

Oh my, I never meant to suggest it was feasible, merely technically possible. Even if someone were insane enough to start such a project, after a few million years they'd probably lose interest.

I didn't think you were suggesting it was feasible. That was Terry's world. I just wanted to make sure that thought wasn't left hanging.

I said no more personal remarks...I meant in any form Bob!Keep it up and you're Fair Game!

Personally, I could care less what you do or what you say. Why don't you point out the "personal remarks" in my above statement. I stated _exactly_ what you had been claiming and why you were (and still are) wrong.

If I have to explain it, forget it...and you don't know whether I'm wrong or not. It's your opinion only.

just grow up and talk about things you have a good understanding of, and avoid the technical issues you have no idea about (such as search techniques, hardware, etc).

More insults....what do you really know about QC? I doubt much...

[Edited]

[Terry McCracken]

Sorry, but you can't _prove_ until you do search all pathways. That's the very definition of proof. "we think" does not mean "it is".

Funny Jonathan found a better way!

What other way?

He pruned out the BS, concentrated on wins and draws etc. He reduced the problem by a huge number of useless positions, otherwise he would have never demonstrated with the technology at his disposal that checkers is a draw if played perfectly.

We are in our infancy as far as technology is concerned.

He didn't "prune" a thing. He uses a best first search that simply searches and stores the tree as it is built. Once a node hits the endgame databases, it is "closed" and never used again. This slowly reduces the number of "open" nodes until each and every one has reached the endgame databases where you are done.

This is not a game-playing strategy that works anywhere near as well as alpha/beta, unless you can search deeply enough to reach the endgame tables eventually. Which we can't and never will be able to do in chess.

Right....Sure Robert..

Fortunately, _one_ of knows what he is talking about here. Do some reading and you will too. best first has been around forever.

Robert, I do know what I'm talking about...and you fail to realize this.

No more personal remarks!

then why the lack of knowledge about what "best-first search" is all about and why it is the obvious solution to the checkers database access problem and why it doesn't work for chess? In addition to supporting your argument that chess will be solved by requiring technological advances that have absolutely _zero_ basis in fact? We have no evidence of parallel universes that can be interconnected, we have no way to circumvent the speed of light which limits hardware speeds. Etc. If you actually know what you are talking about, what are you basing your "knowledge" on? It isn't of _this_ universe...

I never said anything about beta-first search. I didn't argue about that.

You say the things I mention have _zero_ basis in fact. Why don't you argue this with some top physicists or QC with Waterloo's best?

Yes information is lost if light exceeds 300,000km per sec. However I could send a message by a QT and it could reach you in a Plank second!

All I can say is please stop. this goes nowhere. There is no existing technology that can be extrapolated to be capable of searching the enormous search space of the game of chess, to completion, and solve the game in any time-frame that is of interest. Even 5,000 years would be noteworthy. But that won't even scratch the surface with any potential future technology that has a basis in real science that is available today. No point in dreaming about how a magic silver-bullet might be created in the future. Where's the basis in any available technology of today, whether it is in use, or in the lab?

As far as exceeding C goes, that remains the area of science fiction author exploitation to make the fiction seem plausible.

QT does exceed C without violation of relativity.

as far as your "best first" comments go, re-read your posts. You implied it was something new, and then that I didn't know what I was talking about when I explained it. Unfortunately for you, I do understand it, it's only 50+ years old.

If you understood it we wouldn't be arguing!

[Graham Banks]

It's okay to have different opinions and to argue your case, but I'd urge all to refrain from attacking the person rather than the opinion.

Regards, Graham.

[Onno Garms]

For an overview on the definitions of a solved game check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game

[bob]

Fortunately I do understand it. Since you obviously don't, the conversation is pointless. I'll let you have the last word for whatever it is worth.

[Terry McCracken]

Fortunately I do understand it. Since you obviously don't, the conversation is pointless. I'll let you have the last word for whatever it is worth.

No you don't!!!

You know modern computing, nothing exotic. That's the bottom line.

[Deleted]

[gerold]

Fortunately I do understand it. Since you obviously don't, the conversation is pointless. I'll let you have the last word for whatever it is worth.

Thanks for your infor. Bob. Much appreciated.
Thanks to Terry and others for picking Bobs brain

Gerold.

[Dirt]

For an overview on the definitions of a solved game check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game

Yes, exactly so. Silly me for trying to explain it extemporaneously instead of looking for a link.

[OliverBr]

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

I think this is nonsense. There is absolutely no evidence that the speed of computers will increase the next 60 years the same as it did the last 20 years.
I rather think this increment will be less and less in the future.

Just have a look at the velocity of cars, planes etc. The same since decades.

[Dann Corbit]

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

I think this is nonsense. There is absolutely no evidence that the speed of computers will increase the next 60 years the same as it did the last 20 years.
I rather think this increment will be less and less in the future.

Just have a look at the velocity of cars, planes etc. The same since decades.

I am not sure that it is nonsense.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0 ... rintable=1

As far as transportation goes, instead of considering cars, consider rocket motors. They now have ion propulsion and other interesting ideas that could put a large payload on Mars.