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

On Apr 18, 10:18=A0pm, John Bailey <john_bai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
analyz=
e?
>
> >None, by definition. =A0There is no such thing as a problem that
> >needs a quantum computer to analyze. =A0You can do it all with a
> >TuringMachine, because aTuringMachinescan 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. =A0The reason we aren't all sitting in front ofTuring
> >Machinesis 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,
L=
ogic and Quantum Physics (David Deutsch, Artur Ekert,
> Rossella Lupacchini) =A0In that paper, the convenience of thinking that
> all computing can be reduced to an equivalentTuringmachine 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 largely because the only thing Feynman knew about
   computers or computations was main frame computers.
   But since most of today's computations depend on massively
   parellel networks, not mainframes, his observation  mostly
   concern 1950s Burroughs history, not computers.



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 =A0claim:
> "Now we are forced to leave that definition behind. Henceforward, a
> proof must be regarded as a process =97the computation itself =97 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 =91sequence of propositions=92
> 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 =A0Chess =A0make it impossible for a computer other
than=

> a Quantum Computer to make 40 moves within 2 hours?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -