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

On May 8, 12:16 am, Ed Murphy <emurph...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> zzbun...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > On May 7, 9:32 am, David Richerby <dav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > wrote:
> >> zzbun...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 <zzbun...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>> On Apr 18, 10:18=A0pm, John Bailey <john_bai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >>>> In [Deutsch's] 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.
> >>> 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.
> >> No.  Combining two classical computers together makes a computer
twice
> >> as big that can do (roughly) twice as much work in a given time.
> >> Connecting two quantum computers would make a computer twice as big
> >> that can do (roughly) the square of the amount of work in a given
time.
>
> >> Networking classical computers together gives you at best linear
> >> growth; adding qubits to your quantum computer gives exponential
> >> growth.
>
> >    Networking classical computers gives you microcomputers,
> > laserdisks,
> >    satellites,, HDTV,  Holograms, fiber optics, robots, and a
> > paycheck,
> >    rather than idiots like computer scientists, that's why they were
> > invented.
>
> You guys are speaking rather orthogonally.  In theory (his topic),
> quantum computers could do all this and more.  In practice (yours),
> adding more qubits is (so far) Really Difficult; it will take a
> major technological breakthrough to build a quantum computer with
> enough qubits that a network of classical computers can't simulate
> it at full speed.

The original topic had to do with the future of chess, and where it
might head.  This then spawned "Here****ian-Calvinball" as a question
of whether or not there is a finite or infinite number of potential
chess variants.  Maybe Quantum Computing can answer this question.

- Rich