Re: The Future of Chess and Getting It "Unstuck"

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:15:38 +0000, Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>
wrote:

>
>
>
>John Bailey wrote:
>
>>what rules would result in play that needed a quantum computer to
analyze?
>
>None, by definition.  There is no such thing as a problem that
>needs a quantum computer to analyze.  You can do it all with a 
>Turing Machine, because a Turing Machines can simulate all
>possible computers.
>
>The reason everyone is so interested in Quantum Computers is the
>potentially speed at which (in theory) they can solve certain 
>problems.  The reason we aren't all sitting in front of Turing 
>Machines is the slow speed at which they solve most problems.
>That, and the fact that the local office supply store always seems
>to be out of stock of infinite tapes.

While there has been progress in practical implementation of Quantum
Computing since it was written (in 1999), the theory of the case
remains about where David Deutsch left it in his classic paper:
Machines, Logic and Quantum Physics (David Deutsch, Artur Ekert,
Rossella Lupacchini)  In that paper, the convenience of thinking that
all computing can be reduced to an equivalent Turing machine is
considered and rejected.
http://xyz.lanl.gov/abs/math.HO/9911150
"As a matter of fact, Richard Feynman, in his talk during the First
Conference on the Physics of Computation held at MIT in 1981, observed
that it appears to be impossible to simulate a general quantum
evolution on a classical probabilistic computer in an efficient way
[4]. That is to say, any classical simulation of quantum evolution
involves an exponential slowdown in time compared with the natural
evolution, since the amount of information required to describe the
evolving quantum state in classical terms generally grows
exponentially with time."

My question was in the spirit of Deutsch's  claim:
"Now we are forced to leave that definition behind. Henceforward, a
proof must be regarded as a process —the computation itself — for we
must accept that in future, quantum computers will prove theorems by
methods that neither a human brain nor any other arbiter will ever be
able to check step-by-step, since if the ‘sequence of propositions’
corresponding to such a proof were printed out, the paper would fill
the observable universe many times over."

Having said (and quoted) all that--the question is:
Would a set of simple extensions to the rules in the spirit of
Schrodinger's Cat  Chess  make it impossible for a computer other than
a Quantum Computer to make 40 moves within 2 hours?