How many Qubits need to slove chess?

[Kotlov]

How many Qubits need to slove chess?

[smatovic]

How many Qubits need to slove chess?

...or how many QuDits?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit#Var ... _the_qubit

https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/technol ... nd-qudits/

https://www.cio.com/article/3099631/rus ... uters.html

My guess is that before solving chess resp. creating a machine with perfect play
with quantum computers, these will be used for neural networks.

But referring to your original question, I estimate it will be about 1 million Qubits.

--
Srdja

[jp]

No number of qubits will help solve chess unless there is a chess algorithm you can run to use those qubits.

There is currently no such algorithm, and there are no prospects for one.

[smatovic]

...
But referring to your original question, I estimate it will be about 1 million Qubits.

Okay, maybe I was a bit too quick in my estimation

It should be at least 1 million Qubits, considering that you will need some further
logic for legal moves and to determine the game state.

--
Srdja

[jp]

Okay, maybe I was a bit too quick in my estimation

It should be at least 1 million Qubits, considering that you will need some further
logic for legal moves and to determine the game state.

Read my previous post. All the qubits in the world will not help.

[smatovic]

Read my previous post. All the qubits in the world will not help.

As long as no one proofs that it can not be done,
there is imo prospect that it can be done...

--
Srdja

[jp]

As long as no one proofs that it can not be done,
there is imo prospect that it can be done...

You could claim the same of a classical computer. There is no reason to believe such an algorithm exists, waiting to be found.

[smatovic]

As long as no one proofs that it can not be done,
there is imo prospect that it can be done...

You could claim the same of a classical computer. There is no reason to believe such an algorithm exists, waiting to be found.

And what are the reasons to believe the opposite?

--
Srdja

[jp]

And what are the reasons to believe the opposite?

We should believe the opposite because very few algorithms for anything have been found (though those few include some extremely important applications), and those that have are for things that have nothing at all in common with the game of chess, certainly not the features that made those algorithms work.

[smatovic]

And what are the reasons to believe the opposite?

We should believe the opposite because very few algorithms for anything have been found (though those few include some extremely important applications), and those that have are for things that have nothing at all in common with the game of chess, certainly not the features that made those algorithms work.

Hmm, maybe it is not so much about new algorithms, but how to implement the old ones on quantum machines?

I admit I have some ideas in my drawer for an chess/game playing quantum machine, project Iota, but my
drawer works in FIFO matter, so it will take some time....

--
Srdja