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.
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.
Yes, of course. There will be a lot of technical advance in lot of categories.
But even the most sophisticated ion propulsion won't help to travel faster than light. Nature has everywhere limits which just cannot be crossed. Maybe the number of 2^160 (source: R. Hyatt) is just too big to be able to be computed ever. Maybe it's not, and it's about 2^1600. We don't know it yet, but there will be a limit. This is for sure.
PS: The size and age of our universe is limited, too.
Solve implies a 100% certainty. We can't deliver that without exhaustively searching the entire game tree.
I've often wondered about this in connection with chess. Mathematicians appear to do some magic tricks and prove things without crunching the numbers. For instance, when Andrew Wiles proved Fermats Last Theorem (along with the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture) he did not try every integer > 2 in Fermat's equation to prove it. Is Chess a different class of problem that it can only be solved by brute force? I don't know the answer to that.
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.
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.
Yes, of course. There will be a lot of technical advance in lot of categories.
But even the most sophisticated ion propulsion won't help to travel faster than light. Nature has everywhere limits which just cannot be crossed. Maybe the number of 2^160 (source: R. Hyatt) is just too big to be able to be computed ever. Maybe it's not, and it's about 2^1600. We don't know it yet, but there will be a limit. This is for sure.
PS: The size and age of our universe is limited, too.
About FLT travel:
Einstein's famous equation E=M*C*C
is solved for energy units of Kg*m*m/(sec*sec)
But we can also solve this same equation for meters or seconds.
So perhaps it is possible to turn mass into time or displacement as well as turning it into energy. After all, the energy equivalence was thought to be some sort of parlour trick in 1902.
Now, I have literally no idea how such a thing might be accomplished. It's just that impossible things become possible all the time.
I read a 1920 science book that had all sorts of nonsense in it (proving such things as why it is impossible to fly faster than sound or impossible to put a rocket into orbit).
It is also possible {albiet incredibly unlikely} that someone will discover a forced checkmate 30 plies away from the origin and chess will be solved tomorrow morning.
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.
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.
Yes, of course. There will be a lot of technical advance in lot of categories.
But even the most sophisticated ion propulsion won't help to travel faster than light. Nature has everywhere limits which just cannot be crossed. Maybe the number of 2^160 (source: R. Hyatt) is just too big to be able to be computed ever. Maybe it's not, and it's about 2^1600. We don't know it yet, but there will be a limit. This is for sure.
PS: The size and age of our universe is limited, too.
About FLT travel:
Einstein's famous equation E=M*C*C
is solved for energy units of Kg*m*m/(sec*sec)
But we can also solve this same equation for meters or seconds.
So perhaps it is possible to turn mass into time or displacement as well as turning it into energy. After all, the energy equivalence was thought to be some sort of parlour trick in 1902.
Now, I have literally no idea how such a thing might be accomplished. It's just that impossible things become possible all the time.
I read a 1920 science book that had all sorts of nonsense in it (proving such things as why it is impossible to fly faster than sound or impossible to put a rocket into orbit).
It is also possible {albiet incredibly unlikely} that someone will discover a forced checkmate 30 plies away from the origin and chess will be solved tomorrow morning.
Just because chinook is capable of beating the best human checker player 90% or 99% of the times does NOT mean that checker has been solved; it simply means that beside Chinook there has not been many other dedicated checker computers to compete against Chinook and see if in reality Chinook would also beat them 99% of the times.
PS: In probabbly another 5 years Rybka will also be able to beat the best chess player 99% of the times, but since there are so many other strong chess programs, Rybka will not be able to beat the other strong chess programs 90 or 99% of the times. Therefore, all that we can say for certain is that at this moment Rybka on a very strong system is probably capable of beating the best human chess player about 60 to 65% of the times.
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.
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.
Yes, of course. There will be a lot of technical advance in lot of categories.
But even the most sophisticated ion propulsion won't help to travel faster than light. Nature has everywhere limits which just cannot be crossed. Maybe the number of 2^160 (source: R. Hyatt) is just too big to be able to be computed ever. Maybe it's not, and it's about 2^1600. We don't know it yet, but there will be a limit. This is for sure.
PS: The size and age of our universe is limited, too.
About FLT travel:
Einstein's famous equation E=M*C*C
is solved for energy units of Kg*m*m/(sec*sec)
But we can also solve this same equation for meters or seconds.
So perhaps it is possible to turn mass into time or displacement as well as turning it into energy. After all, the energy equivalence was thought to be some sort of parlour trick in 1902.
Now, I have literally no idea how such a thing might be accomplished. It's just that impossible things become possible all the time.
I read a 1920 science book that had all sorts of nonsense in it (proving such things as why it is impossible to fly faster than sound or impossible to put a rocket into orbit).
It is also possible {albiet incredibly unlikely} that someone will discover a forced checkmate 30 plies away from the origin and chess will be solved tomorrow morning.
Just because chinook is capable of beating the best human checker player 90% or 99% of the times does NOT mean that checker has been solved; it simply means that beside Chinook there has not been many other dedicated checker computers to compete against Chinook and see if in reality Chinook would also beat them 99% of the times.
PS: In probabbly another 5 years Rybka will also be able to beat the best chess player 99% of the times, but since there are so many other strong chess programs, Rybka will not be able to beat the other strong chess programs 90 or 99% of the times. Therefore, all that we can say for certain is that at this moment Rybka on a very strong system is probably capable of beating the best human chess player about 60 to 65% of the times.
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...
how do they know how many atoms in the Universe to compare?
I think that throwing the astronomical numbers of possible chess moves as being the main stumbling block in solving chess is wrong. For example ... if white plays e4 and black replies with Nf6 white plays Nc3 black plays Ng8 white plays d4 black plays Nf6 white plays Nf3 black plays Ng8... you really don't have to look around to find all the possible billions of permutations or moves that would allow black to survive. We know for a fact that a strong engine in 10 years (and surely even today)would be able to win this as white every time since black is hopelessly behind in development and will lose with strong white play even with perfect black play. So the astronomical number of possible chess moves contains a lot of garbage that really should not be calculated. Once you remove that garbage ... the number of possible moves becomes dramatically less and solving chess becomes less daunting. Already there are some positions that out of book are obviously draws. You will reach a point where deviating from a known line will be an immediate draw or loss or win which is known to last nth factor. 10 or 20 years hardly seems like a long time when you factor in the huge number of games being played and shared on the internet by very strong players (engines and humans). Try your best book in Playchess server ... you spend a full week of hours of analysis time on several computers to find a killer line ... you will be able to use it maybe 2 or 3 times ... and then guess what ... everyone will have that line in his book. It is only a matter of time before all these lines get played out and chess will be basically solved. It will not be a one day thing ... but a slow and gradual process. As less and less lines that are winning get discovered ... the pressure on those lines will grow exponentially since there are less good lines left. I would guess that even no chess engine or a very minimal chess engine would be required .... all you need is maybe a 1000 TB book
