source

Transcript:
Elon: The actual number of moves that are not utterly stupid in chess is tiny and chess will be fully solved one day

Chess.com: Skill issue

Elon: Chess is hard for humans, but not for computers. One day, it will be fully solved like checkers. Between now and then, or even after, have fun. People enjoy may games/sports where machines are vastly better.

Chess.com: There are more possible chess games, by about 40 order of magnitude, than atoms in the observable universe. To solve chess, you’d have to map them all. Good luck.

Elon: Wrong, all legal chess positions are ~40 ooms less than the estimated atoms in the Universe. And ASI will figure out ways to solve and compress that are far beyond what we could possibly comprehend. (Here I am arguing with some random intern at a chess website)

Chess.com: I’m a full-time employee

Elon: (something-emoji)

Chess.com: Even my friends don’t text me back that fast

      • Doomsider@lemmy.worldEnglish
        16·
        1 day ago

        You are probably technically right about the qualification of guarantee.

        On the other hand, the current best algorithm can definitely beat the best human players.

        • whatstatersprecious@lemmy.worldEnglish
          71·
          1 day ago

          It’s not a technicality. We’re discussing whether chess is a “solved game” or not.

          That’s a much different standard than whether Stockfish can reliably beat Magnus Carlsen. Of course the engines are better than humans. They have been for a long time at this point.

          Chess is not a solved game. If there was a bot that could provably always draw, that would mean it’s solved (as a draw). To be clear, I’m not saying that the bot would just have a perfect drawing record - I’m saying that it literally could never lose, even when playing against the absolute best possible moves.

          • Doomsider@lemmy.worldEnglish
            18·
            1 day ago

            "To fully solve chess you wouldn’t necessarily have to model every possible game situation; it might also be possible to discover an algorithm that provably can achieve at least a draw no matter what. "

            To which I replied we already have an algorithm that can do that. Current algorithms can already beat all players.

            So no, we were not discussing that.

            Speaking of a draw, (I know, not what he or you were actually saying) apparently you can set the “contempt factor” on advanced engines like stockfish to get the program to be more likely to accept draws.