Answers.Body: <p><strong>No!</strong> But maybe someday. Quantum computers are overhyped as much as AI. For the near future, they are a hope on the drawing board somewhere.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-02-07T02:56:06.803Z
Answers.Text: the fanboyz and bullies keep downvoting absolutely correct and useful answers.   usually when they have no direct knowledge and go with what they wish were true.
Answers.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-02-07T13:22:38.317Z
Answers.Text: A good opinion, well reasoned and backed by correct information, is utterly useless if you don't provide said reasoning and information. "Show your work", as it were. This is Stack Exchange, not a forum.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-02-07T14:37:54.403Z
Answers.Text: the little up arrow only labels it as useful. The TRUTH is always useful.  It is not my job to make you believe the truth.  I present the facts and let  you decide whether to take the road to the light or the darkness. AND this was NOT OPINION it was TRUTH from one who has been there for 50 years watching it and doing it.
Answers.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-02-07T16:08:56.797Z
Answers.Text: That's odd, because I hold the same *opinion* as you put forth in this answer, but see no *facts* you bring up supporting the conclusion that quantum computers are overhyped.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-02-10T02:27:24.620Z
Answers.Text: That is your opinion.  As one working in the field I know it is FACT and it is useful.
Answers.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-02-06T18:39:45.500Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-12-22T19:01:44.183Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-12-22T19:01:44.183Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Answers.Body: <p>TLDR: <strong>No</strong></p>
  
  <p>Reasoning: Quantum Computers in the short to medium term only have some very specific things efficiently (factoring and discrete log and a few others). The algorithm google showed "quantum supremecy" on is basically simulating a random quantum circuit to generate random numbers, which is</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>about as favorable an algorithm as you could imagine</li>
  <li>completely useless as an algorithm since there are plenty of simpler random number generators</li>
  <li>probably not even quantum supremecy achieved <a href="https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/10/on-quantum-supremacy/" rel="noreferrer">IBM paper</a></li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>For general tasks, quantum computers achieve a quadratic speedup assuming a large enough quantum computer (compared to exponential or more speedup for the demonstrated problem). Furthermore, to even run a basic chess evaluation function on a quantum computer you would need at least an order of magnitude more qbits than state of the art (probably way more, but I'm hedging).</p>
  
  <p>Overall, quantum computers now are at about the same stage as computers were in the 1800s. It will be a while before they are useful for anything, and chess is highly unlikely to be something they are ever used for seriously.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-11-10T06:42:20.530Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-11-10T06:42:20.530Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Oscar Smith
Body: <p>According to a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1666-5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">paper published in Nature</a> Google has developed a quantum computer.</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p>
    
    <p>The promise of quantum computers is that certain computational tasks
    might be executed exponentially faster on a quantum processor than on
    a classical processor. A fundamental challenge is to build a
    high-fidelity processor capable of running quantum algorithms in an
    exponentially large computational space. Here we report the use of a
    processor with programmable superconducting qubits to create quantum
    states on 53 qubits, corresponding to a computational state-space of
    dimension 2^53 (about 10^16). </p>
    
    <p>Measurements from repeated experiments sample the resulting
    probability distribution, which we verify using classical simulations.
    Our Sycamore processor takes about 200 seconds to sample one instance
    of a quantum circuit a million times—our benchmarks currently indicate
    that the equivalent task for a state-of-the-art classical
    supercomputer would take approximately 10,000 years. This dramatic
    increase in speed compared to all known classical algorithms is an
    experimental realization of quantum supremacy for this specific
    computational task, heralding a much-anticipated computing paradigm.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>On a cautionary note, Google's central claim, that they have performed in 200 seconds computation that would take current state-of-the-art supercomputers 10,000 years is disputed by IBM in a <a href="https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/10/on-quantum-supremacy/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">blog post</a> which claims that:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>We argue that an ideal simulation of the same task can be performed on
    a classical system in 2.5 days and with far greater fidelity. This is
    in fact a conservative, worst-case estimate, and we expect that with
    additional refinements the classical cost of the simulation can be
    further reduced.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>3 minutes 20 seconds to perform what would take 2.5 days is still pretty impressive and presumably up-scaling would produce (exponentially) better results. </p>
  
  <p>Note that quantum computing is not so well suited to linear processing, such as would typically be used to generate tablebases, but is ideally suited to highly parallel processes like those used in AlphaZero.</p>
  
  <p>Does this advance mean we can look forward to a vastly improved AlphaZero?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-11-09T21:43:06.913Z
Comments.Text: I would guess it'll be several years, at least, before we see software like a chess app running on a quantum box.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Randy Minder
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-11-09T22:16:45.800Z
Comments.Text: Google's quantum computer is not even really a proof-of-concept for a quantum computer that can do anything practical.
Comments.UserDisplayName: John Coleman
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-11-10T23:43:34.943Z
Comments.Text: Related: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/6147/will-quantum-computers-solve-chess
Comments.UserDisplayName: Allure
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-11-12T17:05:01.297Z
Comments.Text: Not all problems can be sped up with a quantum computer. In particular, chess is PSPACE-hard, a class of problems not known to have faster quantum algorithms.
Comments.UserDisplayName: eyeballfrog
Tags: <engines><alphazero>
Title: Does Google's new quantum computer mean we will soon have a more powerful AlphaZero?
ThreadText: # Does Google's new quantum computer mean we will soon have a more powerful AlphaZero?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-11-09)
  
  According to a [paper published in Nature](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1666-5) Google has developed a quantum computer.
  
  > **Abstract**
  >
  > The promise of quantum computers is that certain computational tasks
  > might be executed exponentially faster on a quantum processor than on
  > a classical processor. A fundamental challenge is to build a
  > high-fidelity processor capable of running quantum algorithms in an
  > exponentially large computational space. Here we report the use of a
  > processor with programmable superconducting qubits to create quantum
  > states on 53 qubits, corresponding to a computational state-space of
  > dimension 2^53 (about 10^16).
  >
  > Measurements from repeated experiments sample the resulting
  > probability distribution, which we verify using classical simulations.
  > Our Sycamore processor takes about 200 seconds to sample one instance
  > of a quantum circuit a million times—our benchmarks currently indicate
  > that the equivalent task for a state-of-the-art classical
  > supercomputer would take approximately 10,000 years. This dramatic
  > increase in speed compared to all known classical algorithms is an
  > experimental realization of quantum supremacy for this specific
  > computational task, heralding a much-anticipated computing paradigm.
  
  On a cautionary note, Google's central claim, that they have performed in 200 seconds computation that would take current state-of-the-art supercomputers 10,000 years is disputed by IBM in a [blog post](https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/10/on-quantum-supremacy/) which claims that:
  
  > We argue that an ideal simulation of the same task can be performed on
  > a classical system in 2.5 days and with far greater fidelity. This is
  > in fact a conservative, worst-case estimate, and we expect that with
  > additional refinements the classical cost of the simulation can be
  > further reduced.
  
  3 minutes 20 seconds to perform what would take 2.5 days is still pretty impressive and presumably up-scaling would produce (exponentially) better results.
  
  Note that quantum computing is not so well suited to linear processing, such as would typically be used to generate tablebases, but is ideally suited to highly parallel processes like those used in AlphaZero.
  
  Does this advance mean we can look forward to a vastly improved AlphaZero?
  
  **Tags:** engines, alphazero
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I would guess it'll be several years, at least, before we see software like a chess app running on a quantum box.  
  > **username_2**: Google's quantum computer is not even really a proof-of-concept for a quantum computer that can do anything practical.  
  > **username_3**: Related: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/6147/will-quantum-computers-solve-chess  
  > **username_4**: Not all problems can be sped up with a quantum computer. In particular, chess is PSPACE-hard, a class of problems not known to have faster quantum algorithms.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2019-11-10. Score: 9 | Accepted answer
  
  TLDR: **No**
  
  Reasoning: Quantum Computers in the short to medium term only have some very specific things efficiently (factoring and discrete log and a few others). The algorithm google showed "quantum supremecy" on is basically simulating a random quantum circuit to generate random numbers, which is
  
  1. about as favorable an algorithm as you could imagine
  2. completely useless as an algorithm since there are plenty of simpler random number generators
  3. probably not even quantum supremecy achieved [IBM paper](https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/10/on-quantum-supremacy/)
  
  For general tasks, quantum computers achieve a quadratic speedup assuming a large enough quantum computer (compared to exponential or more speedup for the demonstrated problem). Furthermore, to even run a basic chess evaluation function on a quantum computer you would need at least an order of magnitude more qbits than state of the art (probably way more, but I'm hedging).
  
  Overall, quantum computers now are at about the same stage as computers were in the 1800s. It will be a while before they are useful for anything, and chess is highly unlikely to be something they are ever used for seriously.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2020-02-06. Score: -4
  
  **No!** But maybe someday. Quantum computers are overhyped as much as AI. For the near future, they are a hope on the drawing board somewhere.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_5**: the fanboyz and bullies keep downvoting absolutely correct and useful answers.   usually when they have no direct knowledge and go with what they wish were true.  
  > **username_6**: A good opinion, well reasoned and backed by correct information, is utterly useless if you don't provide said reasoning and information. "Show your work", as it were. This is Stack Exchange, not a forum.  
  > **username_5**: the little up arrow only labels it as useful. The TRUTH is always useful.  It is not my job to make you believe the truth.  I present the facts and let  you decide whether to take the road to the light or the darkness. AND this was NOT OPINION it was TRUTH from one who has been there for 50 years watching it and doing it.  
  > **username_6**: That's odd, because I hold the same *opinion* as you put forth in this answer, but see no *facts* you bring up supporting the conclusion that quantum computers are overhyped.  
  > **username_5**: That is your opinion.  As one working in the field I know it is FACT and it is useful.  
  
  ---
  
  