will chess be solved?

Originally posted by Balla88
Yes, I am saying that that 500 qubit increase would increase the power from 2^500 flops to 2^1000 flops. That's the the way quantum computers work, exponential increase in power. That's why they would be able to solve NP-complete problems.

And your credentials are ... ? lausey presented his.

I stopped taking math a long time ago, as understanding human behavior is more challenging. When I shake the rust off my mathematical memory, however, your figures still defy comprehension. I rather suspect that you are spewing your own confusion more than knowledge. Nor do your claims accord with statements regarding the theoretical possibilities of quantum computing from people in the field. In any case, there are substantial challenges yet ahead before quantum computing can be employed for chess--it seems more likely that decoherence will overwhelm the hardware.

Originally posted by Balla88
Yes, I am saying that that 500 qubit increase would increase the power from 2^500 flops to 2^1000 flops. That's the the way quantum computers work, exponential increase in power. That's why they would be able to solve NP-complete problems.

Ok, did a little research and worked out what you are getting at. All a 500 qubit computer will do is be able to process information on 500 bits in parallel.

For example, a 10 qubit quantum computer could perform x flops on 10 bits in parallel. In contrast, a 500 qubit quantum computer could perform x flops on 500 bits in parallel. This is still only a 50 fold increase in processing power. Of course, performing calculations in parallel is streets ahead of conventional computers, but still does not cause exponenial growth in processing power with the addition of operations on bits that it can perform on.

Thought it might not be clear enough so will illustrate with another example, broken down to a 8 qubit computer. Addition of 4 + 5 in binary will be:

0100 + 0101 = 1001

A conventional PC will have to perform this calculation on each bit in series. A quantum computer could do it on all bits simultaneously. Now an 16 qubit computer will be able to perform 4 + 5 and 3 + 6 at the same time:

0100 + 0101 = 1001
0011 + 0110 = 1001

Doubling the parallel processing of the quantum computer which is directly proportional to the overall performance.

What I conclude then is that it still does the same as a conventional, just that each flop is much quicker.

I skimmed through the posts to get a picture on where the argument was. I noticed a lot of people got caught up on an idea lausey gave about quantum computing.

Now lausey, this isn't a personal attack and you might have allready re-evaluated your position on this-

lausey said:

"Not in anyone's life time when 10^120 is more then the number of atoms in the known universe. That means that even if you could possibly store a chess position within one atom. You couldn't physically create a computer big enough."

Quantum computing isn't storing a piece of information per atom. That is classical computing, you have to realize the exponential difference.

Here's a good starter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing

Originally posted by lausey
Ok, did a little research and worked out what you are getting at. All a 500 qubit computer will do is be able to process information on 500 bits in parallel.

For example, a 10 qubit quantum computer could perform x flops on 10 bits in parallel. In contrast, a 500 qubit quantum computer could perform x flops on 500 bits in parallel. This is still only a 50 ...[text shortened]... lude then is that it still does the same as a conventional, just that each flop is much quicker.

Your conclusion is a little right. It will have to translate back into conventional means (which is a load of other problems.) Except that it isn't a little, it is a LOT quicker.

There are 8 different states for 3 bits. ( 000, 010, 110 etc.) Using superposition, a quantum computer can process all 8 states at once.

Now each time you add another qubit, the storage/computational power exponentialy increases.

Read the wikipedia link I gave in the other post. It's nice because if there is something you don't understand you can just click and learn... click and learn...

Originally posted by adoos
Your conclusion is a little right. It will have to translate back into conventional means (which is a load of other problems.) Except that it isn't a little, it is a LOT quicker.

There are 8 different states for 3 bits. ( 000, 010, 110 etc.) Using superposition, a quantum computer can process all 8 states at once.

Now each time you add another qubit, t ...[text shortened]... e if there is something you don't understand you can just click and learn... click and learn...

I find a lot of nonsense at Wikipedia, but sometimes straighten it out. The problem with such a source is that anyone can modify any article any time. You never know the credibility of the author(s), but can be confident that errors will be corrected as new ones are entered.

In any case, I read the Wikipedia article on quantum computing two days ago. It does not support the overconfident claims that have been put forth here. Perhaps it is your lack of chess knowledge as much as your overconfidence in technology that misleads you.

BTW, as a historian who has examined histories of computing and other technologies, I'm not surprised by grandiose claims, but nor do I need much, if any, specific information in order to be skeptical.

Originally posted by adoos
Your conclusion is a little right. It will have to translate back into conventional means (which is a load of other problems.) Except that it isn't a little, it is a LOT quicker.

There are 8 different states for 3 bits. ( 000, 010, 110 etc.) Using superposition, a quantum computer can process all 8 states at once.

Now each time you add another qubit, t ...[text shortened]... e if there is something you don't understand you can just click and learn... click and learn...

Your conclusion is a little right. It will have to translate back into conventional means (which is a load of other problems.) Except that it isn't a little, it is a LOT quicker.

My argument did not dispute this fact.

There are 8 different states for 3 bits. ( 000, 010, 110 etc.) Using superposition, a quantum computer can process all 8 states at once.

My argument does not dispute this either.

Now each time you add another qubit, the storage/computational power exponentialy increases.

A 500 digit binary number can represent 2^500 different states, and does not mean that the 500 qubit computer can process at 2^500 flops.

Not doubting each operation by a quantum computer is a lot quicker but does not increase exponentially with the addition of bits. It just means that it can process more bits simultaneously. Each addition of a bit would double the number of states that can be processed in this time (a time period that does not change). As opposed to a conventional computer which would increase in time propertionally with the addition of a bit (as they are processed in series).

Not a personal attack either but could not find anything in link you provide (or other sources I have read on quantum computing) which supports your last claim.

EDIT: Realise that you did not say that a 500 qubit computer can process at 2^500 flops, but was just clarifying something with respect to what Balla88 said.

One more time ... In quantum systems, the computational space increases exponentially with the size of the system which enables
exponential parallelism. This parallelism could lead to exponentially faster quantum algorithms than possible
classically.

Classically, the time it takes to do certain computations can be decreased by using parallel
processors. To achieve an exponential decrease in time requires an exponential increase
in the number of processors, and hence an exponential increase in the amount of physical
space needed. However, in quantum systems the amount of parallelism increases exponentially
with the size of the system. Thus, an exponential increase in parallelism requires
only a linear increase in the amount of physical space needed. This effect is called quantum
parallelism

However, you are right in one respect. With quantum computers the running time for an algorithm increases only quadratically rather than exponentially relative to the increase in the size of the problem. Quadratic time is the square of the size of the problem. The quadratic growth rate doesn't outstrip the theoretical ability of a quantum computer to solve large instances of a problem.

Found the source of where you copied this from:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=131246&postcount=14

Although it is restricted by the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, as illustrated in the following paragraph:

There is a catch, and a big catch at that. While a quantum system can perform massive parallel computation, access to the results of the computation is restricted. Accessing the results is equivalent to making a measurement, which disturbs the quantum state. This
problem makes the situation, on the face of it, seem even worse than the classical situation; we can only read the result of one parallel thread, and because measurement is probabilistic, we cannot even choose which one we get.

Although it is a different restriction to our discussion, it still does not prove that quantum computer processing power could get anywhere near the levels that you claim. I am also still not convinced that it could reach a level to calculate the best move in any position in chess.

EDIT: Originally did this as a "Reply & Quote" but for some reason I got an error when trying to post. Just happened with this thread....odd!

This discussion has focused on the theoretical power of quantum computers, not the power they have right now or the problems facing them. Originally, there were problems that couldn't be solved with original computers and nuclear fission. Many of the people working on the first computers are quoted as saying a computer might weigh less than 10 tons. As you now, if you have read, there are several working 5-9 qubit computers.

I've solved it!

The answer is...

Oh s@'t, I've forgotten.

[EDIT - I think there was a "4" in there somewhere.]

Originally posted by Balla88
One more time ... In quantum systems, the computational space increases exponentially with the size of the system which enables
exponential parallelism. This parallelism could lead to exponentially faster quantum algorithms than possible
classically.

Classically, the time it takes to do certain computations can be decreased by using parallel
processors ...[text shortened]... t outstrip the theoretical ability of a quantum computer to solve large instances of a problem.

Just testing something. (sorry)

Originally posted by Russ
Just testing something. (sorry)

Weigh in. You're the only one at this site that no one will dispute has at least some knowledge of computers. 😉

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
Naturally, this discussion hinges on the power of computers, but let's imagine that there is a computer of inifinte power, that can "solve" chess, brute force, in an instant...

Somehow, at the start of a game, I cannot imagine it saying White checkmates Black in 185 moves... but I can imagine it saying 0.00.

Wouldn't there be just one perfect ...[text shortened]... te yourself against once the game is over. It shouldn't detract at all from the joy of playing.

Either way, how does it decide to play against opponents of unknown strength (e.g. humans).

Does the computer playing the black pieces resign after 1.e4 due to the force mate in 185?

Or, does the computer consider 1...e5 to be the same as 1...f5 since it expects to lose
in no more than 185 anyway?

Or, if it is 0.00 instead of mate in 185, does the computer always offer a draw on the first move?

On second thoughts, i can't be @rsed to argue physics with people.