Quantum computers and chess

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pluto2

Banned
Banned
Will quantum computing allow the game of chess to be solved? Basically in the future will computers with the use of quantum technology ever calculate every possible move in the game of chess?
 
Computers solve error-thang, complexshish.

Did you know due to random fluctuations, the average computer is busied with about 5-8% error handling. Most interesting subject. Needs adjusting, with a simulation. Way some tend to "tweak", beyond belief.

Some, I estimate (excluding total FAIL, Buy me another...), run around 65% or roughly 2/3rds errors. What with them there pokes and all...

So, as to answer your question, I guess one would be NEAT to look at...
 
This requies an understanding of chess (duh!!).
I have one.

Computers and chess...
something that no doubt will be 'solved' easily within a matter of years; I immagine.

;-)
 
Couldn't find it; do not have time however... Are you saying that, the entire chess puzzle has an open analysis view ?

;-)
 
sisyphus__ said:
Couldn't find it; do not have time however... Are you saying that, the entire chess puzzle has an open analysis view ?

;-)
Click to expand...

If by that you mean can a computer anaylize the best moves to make in order to win the game then yes.
 
Nah. That is what the thread starter (maybe) could be talking about (see my first post)... Kasparove had lost this doesn't mean that he isn't better or able to beat it. Infact I think he won aganist it one time; Kasparov is great.
No chess machine has got that far yet.
I'm sure someone still has their high level computer set on the 1 move; analysing every possible move at this second.

;-)
 
What is the processing speed of a quantum computer? If for the sake of simplification we say there are ten available choices for every move and there are eighty moves in a game (40W and 40B), that makes 10**80 games to analyze in order to "solve" the "puzzle" the way they solved the puzzle of checkers ("draughts" to you Brits). That's a lot of zeroes. I don't think we've got a prefix in the peta-exa-yotta-zetta series for that one yet.

The next challenge after that will be go. The number of choices on any move is pretty close to 361 minus the number of stones already played, and there are typically 200-250 stones on a completed board plus the prisoners.

That will be a challenge, and it explains why go software lags so far behind chess software.
 
Transmute said:
Even quantum computers can't calculate an infinite number of moves.
Click to expand...

There are not an infinite number of board confugurations in chess. It is theoretically possible to plot to every possibily move from start to finish. Stated differently, you can plot out an extended form for the game of chess. All that you need to do is to note that any "branch" that leads you to a board configuration you have already seen before can be disregarded, as then it is simply duplicative.

Read up on Zermelo's theorem (an early work of game theory, in which he argued that one player or the other always has a single strategy that guarantees him at least a draw—and maybe a win—in games like chess where all the information about the game is provided at the start). In fact, here's a Google Books result that explains it.
 
Who said there a finish? Sorry it was a joke meant to point out that calculating all moves is based on the assumption of a limited number of turns.

The problem with brute force crunching to find all possible moves all possible turns ahead of time is that it would be simpler to just try to determine the strategy of the opponent, counter it and imply a strategy beyond the opponents ability to counter, when they get computers to do then the battle for AI being smart then man will be won, brute force AI is not very smart.
 
Of course a game of chess could in theory go on forever, but eventually you would wind up with a board configuration back that was identical to that you found yourself in earlier in the game. Assuming both players have are using the extended form of the game as their strategic guide, that game is a draw, because they will just keep going forever, endlessly repeating itself.

Zermelo's theorem really shows that, assuming each player knows the extended form of the game and makes no mistakes, one player either has an insurmountable advantage over the other or both players will always either draw or keep playing forever.

Let's say that computers calculated it out and the second-mover had that advantage. If Player 2 had the extended form memorized or available, then he/she/it could never lose the game. The best player 1 could ever get would be a draw or a game that never ends, and at worst he loses. There would be no ploy or gambit that Player 1 could devise that player 2 could not negate. On the other hand, player 2 might have winning strategies, but could never do worse than a draw.
 
Ah, I didn't think of it that way, well a game can be won with brute force if it has a limited number of moves possible, (but not reality) then the question should be how many moves does chest have possible?
 
Pandaemoni said:
All that you need to do is to note that any "branch" that leads you to a board configuration you have already seen before can be disregarded, as then it is simply duplicative.
Click to expand...
Not so fast. If the same position is reached three times, the game is a draw. Theoretically in just the right circumstances this could be used by a disadvantaged player to force a draw.
Pandaemoni said:
Of course a game of chess could in theory go on forever. . . .
Click to expand...
A new rule is gaining acceptance: If fifty moves are made without a capture or a pawn move (making it impossible to repeat any previous position), the game is a draw.
. . . . but eventually you would wind up with a board configuration back that was identical to that you found yourself in earlier in the game. Assuming both players have are using the extended form of the game as their strategic guide, that game is a draw, because they will just keep going forever, endlessly repeating itself.
Click to expand...
As noted, if it happens one more time the game is ruled a draw.
 
Makes you wonder what would happen should you let 2 quantum computers play eachother. Stalemate?
 
s0meguy said:
Makes you wonder what would happen should you let 2 quantum computers play each other. Stalemate?
Click to expand...
That depends on something we don't know yet. Is chess a game in which, given perfect play, the first player has a forced win? The second player? Or is it a draw? Or is it a forced win but it would exceed the fifty moves allowed by 21st century tournament rules?

The quantum computers might be able to figure that out.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
Not so fast. If the same position is reached three times, the game is a draw.
Click to expand...

I was unaware of that rule. Tough one to keep accurate track of. "Dude, I think we have the same board configuration 74,321 moves ago, and then again 452,837 moves before that!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top