"Rich Hutnik" <richardhutnik@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:345ea8f4-e519-4f7b-8f40-abf48358fcf9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
But isn't the [gigantic] fly in the ointment the fact that parrallelism
to
increase brute-force solutions is still a very questionable paradigm?
After all, the comprehension of two 1600 players does not equal that of a
2200 player.
While there may be an increase in event horizon by quantitative analysis
which may achieve some result, the 'fly' is that these are typically
quantitative *****sments based on materials won/lost, aso where is the
qualitative one?
[[ IE: unless a conclusive result is achieved by brute-forcing,
[example; mate] then what does any program do when at ply 12 it sees the
win
of a pawn, but costing two tempii? Perhaps it will continue for another 12
plies and discover it recovers one tempo, keeps the pawn, but loses the
initiative... ]]
Therefore what is lacking in brute-force approaches is qualitative
evaluation of /specific/ positions.
The 'fly' turns out to be a man-made one - since evaluating a tempo or
other
positional factors such as initiative, are factors that the programmer
*****ses, not the chess-engine. Furthermore, these *****sments must
necessarily be abstracted ones, sui generis, since they are /initial/ data
programmed in the chess engine, created from mean data, as averaged
ennumerated evaluations.
As we know, many 'averages' never occur, since data sets can be heavily
polarised away from any instance of mean value - the averaged condition
that
is pre-programmed may in fact, /never/ occur].
Attempts to correct qualitative analysis lie in provision of yet more data
evaluation sets, such as for middle-games, or sub-sets where 2 bishops
have
an open/closed position, etc. But the program itself does not generate the
data set!
Thereby, no contextual evaluation of the worth of material/positional
factors takes place by the act of the chess engine's own calculus - and
this
is the stalled point in chess computing emulations, [emulation* since the
program is merely acting on received data and not conducting its own
evaluation] and has been so for 10 years. It is so stalled, that AI
researchers gave it up as anything much useful to them.
To remove chess computing from emulation, the program needs to not only
play
its own moves, but successively generate its own evaluation criteria.
Phil Innes
*Whether qualitative, or quantitative such as using opening books.
> - Rich
|
