Checkers game question is settled!

[MidGe]

OK, checkers played perfectly results in a draw!

See report here

What next and how long for chess?

[BlueBear]

Groundbreaking work!

Chess is not likely to be solved (in maybe 30+ years) without a revolutionary breakthrough in computing speed.

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]
Groundbreaking work!

Chess is not likely to be solved (in maybe 30+ years) without a revolutionary breakthrough in computing speed.

[/ QUOTE ]

30+ years is quite an overstatement; Quantum Processing is within a decade away

[modnareno]

How long before heads up limit hold'em? 5 years?

[Ohgod]

Question - actual quantum computing to solve 'real' problems? I know they can build computers of the order of a few qubits now, but do you have any references on the prospects for building bigger devices? To my mind, I suspect that it will be incredibly difficult to get larger devices to function within that timescale, but then I don't really know anything abut it.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Groundbreaking work!

Chess is not likely to be solved (in maybe 30+ years) without a revolutionary breakthrough in computing speed.

[/ QUOTE ]

30+ years is quite an overstatement; Quantum Processing is within a decade away

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be shocked if quantum computing could significantly help with this type of problem.

[Dale Dough]

Perhaps this deserves its own thread, but I always assumed it would be perfect for these types of things. I admittedly know next to nothing about quantum computing, but I was under the assumption that a qubit takes on a continuous range of values simultaneously. Can't that somehow be used to analyze possible outcomes at once, as opposed to going through them listwise?

I don't mean it's easy and in fact have no idea how I'd implement it, but I'm sure it has to address the 'more combinations than particles in the universe' problem and put it at least into the realm of the possible. Right?

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

30+ years is quite an overstatement; Quantum Processing is within a decade away

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be shocked if quantum computing could significantly help with this type of problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I think that would be pretty strange indeed. I think people sort of assume that since factoring seems like it's probably NP-hard (or something like it) and since a quantum computer can do that pretty well, quantum computers can do everything automagically. But I'm not sure how you turn a search of move trees into a problem of period finding, which is essentially what Shor's factoring algorithm comes down to, I believe.

Beyond that, I'm HIGHLY skeptical you'll be seeing any quantum computers to speak of in 10 years, and that's what I work on at the moment. It's hard, hard, hard, hard. It's definitely possible I don't know enough about what the semiconductor guys or the ion-trap guys can pull off, but I still have difficulty imagining they'll have enough systems coupled together within 10 years to handle multiple error-corrected qubits.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

30+ years is quite an overstatement; Quantum Processing is within a decade away

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be shocked if quantum computing could significantly help with this type of problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I think that would be pretty strange indeed. I think people sort of assume that since factoring seems like it's probably NP-hard (or something like it) and since a quantum computer can do that pretty well, quantum computers can do everything automagically. But I'm not sure how you turn a search of move trees into a problem of period finding, which is essentially what Shor's factoring algorithm comes down to, I believe.

Beyond that, I'm HIGHLY skeptical you'll be seeing any quantum computers to speak of in 10 years, and that's what I work on at the moment. It's hard, hard, hard, hard. It's definitely possible I don't know enough about what the semiconductor guys or the ion-trap guys can pull off, but I still have difficulty imagining they'll have enough systems coupled together within 10 years to handle multiple error-corrected qubits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quantum computers may be able to beat classical computers in some senses. But they probably cannot do NP-complete problems in polynomial time (FWIW factoring is probably much easier than NP-complete). Determining who should win or draw in games such as chess and checkers (draughts) are instances of a PSpace-complete problem which is even harder still.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
Beyond that, I'm HIGHLY skeptical you'll be seeing any quantum computers to speak of in 10 years, and that's what I work on at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

mind if I ask what exactly your research regards? explain in as little or as much detail as you want.