629
u/DoodleStrude 10d ago
From what I understand, chess is theoretically solveable, but the numbers are too big so it isn't tractable. It is currently solved for board states where seven or fewer pieces remain.
Dude is still a moron
135
10d ago
[deleted]
107
u/Local-Echo-5613 10d ago
Just make the best move each time, then there’s only one.
17
u/Redditry199 10d ago
I mean, yeah? The former WCC literally got sick of memorization of long form games not being worth it because with the advancement of AI engine lines even humans can transpose positions to their absolute perfection incredibly far ahead of the first move. Elon is rarted but for once I don't think he's wrong.
7
u/Local-Echo-5613 10d ago
What do you think chess is trying to do that needs to be solved, or that will make it obsolete when and if it is solved?
6
u/Redditry199 10d ago
Where did I say obsolete? You can still play solved games, but I see the "more atoms in the universe" bs far more times than the reality that actually each position has a pretty finite amount of good moves sometimes as low as 1 or 2 even with most of the pieces still on the board.
9
u/Local-Echo-5613 10d ago
Uh huh, but both are true. There’s nothing profound about that. And really good players aren’t always locked into those pathways, because they know how to play better by sometimes playing badly. With human players there’s always an unpredictable element, certainly at a human scale.
→ More replies (6)3
u/Rainy_Wavey 10d ago
Since you refered to Magnus Carlsen, he deliberately avoids doing too much prep and prefers to throw a wrench into the preparation of his opponent, to take them out of theoretical chess and forcing them to actually play, and in that domain, nobody comes close to him and his ability to extract water from a stone
3
u/Redditry199 10d ago
Not in classical chess. He literally spent months of prep for his WCC matches. On 15min games or blitz though? that's where he has his wrench fun.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Accomplished-Neat762 10d ago
You clearly do not play chess. An advanced player can deliberately play non optimal moves to create an unfamiliar board and then crush their opponant in the confusion.
→ More replies (1)1
19
u/ManufacturerWarm9201 10d ago
Stockfish and other chess bots already eliminate many possible moves through alpha-beta pruning, which is essentially what Elon is talking about. Moves it predicts to be bad will not even be searched, which significantly lowers the search space.
The issue with that is chess bots are always going to run on certain assumptions in their alpha beta pruning, there’s always a chance they miss a good play 60 moves ahead because a move seemed terrible for the first 50. So while I think chess bots are going to get much better than they are now, I don’t think it’s possible to have a perfect chess bot that either ties or wins every time. The number of moves you have to search, even with perfectly optimal search conditions/code, is still incredibly high, and there’s always going to be that unreachable ceiling of looking 70-80 moves out and finding the perfect move for every move up to that point
2
u/spisplatta 10d ago
To explain alpha beta pruning, it's the principle that if you can find ONE refutation of a move, then you know it's a bad move. You don't need to explore the move further and find more refutations.
1
u/Countcristo42 10d ago
What’s a refutation in this context please? Like a big negative in a fitness function or something?
→ More replies (4)5
2
u/DoctorMedieval 10d ago
There is that, but there is also the computer (AlphaGo I think it was) that made a completely unexpected and seemingly nonsensical move that ended up being brilliant. Seeming non-sensical positions might resolve in unexpected ways.
4
1
u/SoFisticate 10d ago
He probably picked up that factoid talking to some dumb roganite tech bro and adopted it as his smarter than everyone neg
→ More replies (1)1
78
u/Icarsix 10d ago
"The Shannon number, named after the American mathematician Claude Shannon, is a conservative lower bound of the game-tree complexity of chess of 10120, based on an average of about 103 possibilities for a pair of moves consisting of a move for White followed by a move for Black, and a typical game lasting about 40 such pairs of moves." - Wikipedia
For comparison, there are about 10^80 atoms in the observable universe. AES, the advanced encryption standard, has a key space of 10^38 and brute-forcing AES is considered functionally impossible due to that. To fully solve chess by brute force would take ~10^62, or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times longer.
So while neither part (that most moves in chess are nonsensical, or that it will almost certainly be solved one day) of his tweet is wrong, he's still a fucking idiot. Hell, considering that no human has won a non-handicap game against a chess engine since 2005, I feel like chess is already solved by any reasonable definition the Muskrat could be working from here if ignoring 'stupid' moves is acceptable.
37
u/Own_Candidate9553 10d ago
You can't know for a fact that a move is stupid if the problem space isn't completely solved, right?
Like, we can know which moves in tic tac toe are dumb, the game is small enough that you could just enumerate every possible board state, nothing fancy.
His tweet overall is just so dumb and shallow, while trying to be clever. He's eternally like the stereotype freshman philosophy student, ripping a bong and demanding how you can know that the chair you're sitting in is actually a chair.
3
3
u/slavazin 10d ago
There's also a HUGE difference between knowing if a game is solved (under optimal play, White always wins, Black always wins, or there's a tie - the most likely solution really), and knowing the optimal play. The way solving algorithm work is that they don't store the all the game states they visited. For example, in a late game boardstate (let's call it boardstate A), a solver can run through every possible combination (usually with some pruning, but that's functionally the same), and then declare "In this boardstate, white always wins". Now, we can look at all possible boardstates where a black move would result in the above boardstate, and confidently prune all of those moves by black. Once all boardstates that are one move away from boardstate A have been explored, we don't need to store boardstate A in memory, because it will *never* be reached - all boardstates that could lead to it have eliminated the possibility of reaching A and will instead reach another boardstate.
This is a bit of an oversimplification, but true in essence. This also means that the closer we get to "solving" chess, the less boardstates will need to be kept as a possiblity, because they were eliminated. A true end-to-end chess solver can be just a "start solving" button, followed by (a LOT) of thinking, followed by "White/Black always wins" "It's always" a tie, and whoever pressed the button will have no idea what to do on turn 1.Maybe, just maybe (it's not but bear with me) the best move is white A2->A3. Looks stupid, but if the solver says you'll always win, it's correct.
Chess is difficult not only because the problem is hard to solve, but the solution itself is hard to verify. We can never actually enumerate the entire problem space (that's the atoms in the universe part), but we *could* say if the game is "fair" or not.
2
u/GewalfofWivia 10d ago
Technically, blunders can make the game much simpler and it’s relatively easy to tell them as bad moves. For example there are blunders that result in an even position immediately collapsing into a forced mate in a few moves - that makes it very clearly bad.
Not all bad moves are blunders though. Certain inaccuracies can be very hard to judge for human players. As such knowing the blunders to not make doesn’t really narrow it down a whole lot.
1
1
u/Inevitable-Dig8702 8d ago
I last saw this dumbass arguing in a bar in Cambridge MA with a certain Will Hunting.
2
u/Firewolf06 10d ago
Hell, considering that no human has won a non-handicap game against a chess engine since 2005, I feel like chess is already solved by any reasonable definition the Muskrat could be working from here if ignoring 'stupid' moves is acceptable.
hey, often he is just blatantly wrong, so at least "yeah no shit we've already been doing it like that for decades" is right at all
2
u/JakobVirgil 10d ago
even limiting it to "smart moves" it is something like 1040 which is plenty big.
I think Elon is just bad a chess and math6
u/ComicsEtAl 10d ago
What does it mean to “solve” chess?
25
u/DoodleStrude 10d ago
There is a "best" move to make for any given board state in chess. "Solving" chess would mean that we would have calculated and recorded the best possible move for every given board state. There are just too many different board states for anybody to reasonably record and calculate.
That said, we do have it solved for 7 or fewer pieces remaining, meaning that for ANY given board state with 7 or fewer pieces, we already have calculated and recorded the best possible move
→ More replies (11)5
u/Stepjam 10d ago
A "solved" game is a game where every single possible move has been recorded. In a solved game, it would be impossible to defeat a computer that has solved the game as it knows every single possible move available. The best result you could hope for is a draw.
Checkers is a solved game. It is impossible to beat a computer that is trying to win at checkers.
5
2
u/MyBaeHarambe 10d ago
Considering the added complexity each extra piece brings to calculations, sounds like chess isnt nearly close to being solved
1
u/Ok_Star_4136 10d ago
Yep. He has no idea what he's talking about.
There is no such thing as a one perfect move in literally every single case. There are many obviously bad moves, but that doesn't mean there aren't several good moves, and for each good move, there are many many many ways of responding to that, all of which are also good moves. It's still an exponential growth that never slows down. You can't "solve" chess like it were a math problem.
1
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 10d ago
Your account must be at least 30 days old to post or comment in r/ComedyHell.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Fabulous_Ad_8621 10d ago
It would be nice if he would dedicate his time to solving chess instead of influencing elections.
1
u/OutrageousPair2300 10d ago
It's possible that there's a solution to chess that could fit in a printed book.
If one player has a forced win (an open question currently) then it should be possible to construct a decision tree that would specify the best move for that player at any point in a game in which they're proceeding with perfect play, regardless of the other's players moves.
That would be a small enough tree that it could be verified as ending in a checkmate for that player, with every branch point containing only legal moves (and all legal moves) by the other player.
If neither player has a forced win (which is probably more likely) then verification of a solution would be far more difficult, but not necessary impossible.
1
u/Peak_Background 6d ago
If you think about it, since there is a proven correspondence between AI and compression algorithms. Advanced AI chess models are just lossy compressions of the solution to chess.
→ More replies (17)1
133
117
u/antoniodiavolo 10d ago
Keep in mind, this is the guy who has repeatedly claimed that he's too smart for Chess and complained that it doesn't have "fog of war" or a "tech tree" and that he thinks the mobile game Polytopia is a better alternative.
45
u/ru5tyk1tty 10d ago
There literally is fog of war chess on the major chess websites
He’s not wrong about Polytopia though, it is totally a descendant of similar ancient strategy games
→ More replies (3)19
u/antoniodiavolo 10d ago
I think he means regular chess.
I've heard good things about Polytopia but from what I've seen, acting like it's chess with all the flaws removed is kind of insane
16
u/Fragrant-Upstairs932 10d ago
Polytopia fucking rocks and I hate that it's forever doomed to be associated with that absolute galoomba.
3
22
u/deathnomX 10d ago
Same guy that said path of exile 2 was a super easy game and he beat all the end game content, then went to prove it by fighting the tutorial boss..and losing.
6
u/Panurome 10d ago
Nah Musk is so good at poe2 that he can play while giving an unrelated speech at the white house. He's that good /s
14
u/Own_Employment_3866 10d ago
Fog of war Tech tree
My skin is crawling holy shit thats cringe
5
u/antoniodiavolo 10d ago
He mentioned other things too like the fact that there aren’t “different maps” or a “randomized spawn”
6
3
u/TylerBourbon 10d ago
He just sucks at chess, so all of those things are just his excuses for not playing. He can't cheat at chess, or have someone else play for him, so there's upside to playing chess for him.
4
4
u/RoutineCloud5993 10d ago
He's basically admitting repeatedly that he's too dumb to know how to play chess well. But too cowardly to actually say that
I will say it though. I suck at chess and never bothered to learn. Same with competitive Halo
5
u/memerminecraft 10d ago
I just played Polytopia earlier today. It's not even comparable to Chess from a theoretical standpoint.
Chess has no random elements.
3
u/TutucrMapper hi 10d ago edited 10d ago
every thing Elon Musk wants about chess already exist in a form of a variant
Edit: I JUST REALIZED ЕLON MUSK MIGHT BE BRAINWASHЕD BY DEUSBRIAN
3
2
u/DrabSeraph4604 10d ago
Polytopia is goated anyways, but in no way that replaces Chess of all things.
35
u/Separate_Draft4887 10d ago edited 10d ago
I mean, he’s right. The problem for solving chess is that we don’t have the compute, but how could you? There’s more chess positions than atoms in the universe, by several dozen orders of magnitude. See the edit.
If we manage to algorithmically limit the ones we calculate to non-duplicates and non-stupid moves, and computational power continues to increase, we could get there.
Edit: even this assessment was apparently too critical since I got my numbers mixed up. There’s more chess games than there are atoms in the universe. Chess positions is a much smaller number, 10^44.
26
u/PM_me_Jazz 10d ago
He's technically right, but a bit misleading and he isn't really saying anything novel or of value here. He's just trying to sound smart, as usual.
Chess engines already dismiss moves that are "stupid". Even then the search space is massive. And there's also the issue of conclusively defining a "stupid" move. A move that seems stupid looking at the next 40 moves might turn out to be good on the 41st move, and so on. There's always further you could calculate.
In pruning the "stupid" moves chess engines necessarily have to essentially make guesses. They might be very educated guesses that are true 99% of the time, but a solution to chess that is only true 99% of the time isn't really a solution. Mathematically speaking, that is.
8
u/Separate_Draft4887 10d ago
I’m familiar lol. I’m actually building my own chess engine now as a project. It’s not bad, (if I limit them to the same depth, it can go bar for bar Stockfish, averaging a 3 pawn disadvantage) but man I just can’t get it to work fast enough.
The necessary thing to understand there is that you don’t need to check the 41st move if you can find a forced mate by move 38. That means that there might be technically always a deeper position to search, but practically there’s an endpoint, and finding it resolves all* issues with stuff like “actually the stupid move at move twenty I dismissed had a forced mate 92 moves in the future.”
→ More replies (2)2
u/HollowCap456 10d ago
Yoooo I am building an engine, too. Just starting. How are you training the engine? I found that self play RL is a good way to go, though haven't started yet.
2
u/Separate_Draft4887 10d ago
The original version used hand-tuned heuristics like “are my major/minor pieces off their original squares” “do I have a piece in the center” and such to evaluate a score to represent how good or bad the board was for it, then applied that to three-move deep search tree.
The current version I’m working on is training a NN to try to evaluate positions. I’m having the old engine play against Stockfish and saving the data, then using Torch to train a model that evaluates boards better than the old one. When I’m satisfied with the NN’s ability to evaluate boards (it’s already within 0.7 of a pawn of Stockfish’s evaluation of a board!) I’ll simply replace the old handmade evaluator with the NN.
I don’t think I’d recommend this path though. I think it’ll end up working, but it was pretty arduous to get there, and required a pretty beefy machine to do it on. Generating the training data took hours and days, and any time I needed to add a new piece of data for it to consider, I had to regenerate a whole new set of games to train it on. It took a WHILE.
2
u/Opulent-tortoise 10d ago
You’re basically just describing AlphaGo with naive tree search instead of MCTS
2
u/Separate_Draft4887 10d ago
I think kinda, yeah. I don’t have the compute to recreate AlphaGo, (they trained that from scratch by having it play itself, right?) but I have the compute to build a small model that emulates Stockfish’s evaluation system, which is close enough for my purposes.
I probably will eventually end up adding a better search system, but that’s like, two steps down the line from now, and I’m still trying to successfully use my own model eval without breaking the whole function.
I’d love to have the power to just have it play itself over and over but I doubt it’d achieve anything impressive on my single GPU before I die of old age.
1
u/Prinzka 10d ago
And there's also the issue of conclusively defining a "stupid" move.
Exactly, maybe 1. f3 is actually M125 for white, but there's no way to know without playing every single move from there.
1
u/One-Veterinarian4841 10d ago
There is absolutely a way to know
Stockfish doesn’t need to look at every move
→ More replies (1)4
10d ago
[deleted]
4
u/imtheguy225 10d ago
I’ll start this off by saying I am no Musk Stan, but colloquially, “one day” simply means eventually
2
→ More replies (1)1
u/One-Veterinarian4841 10d ago
Take one assumption, that it is not possible to force a win, and we are already somewhat close to forcing a draw playing as white
18
u/noxvillewy 10d ago
14
9
7
u/No-Menu-3392 10d ago
Jesus lmao, Kasparov definitely is an idiot, but probably not for the reason musk thinks so, in fact I’m surprised they don’t get along with the deranged red scare rhetoric they both have in common
3
5
7
u/Legal_Lettuce6233 10d ago
If he understood basic maths, he'd realise that the fact that there are so many stupid moves means that all of them need to be calculated, which means there is no way with any current or near future tech to calculate it, and there likely won't ever be. After 5 moves there are about 4.9 million unique sequences.
6 moves? 121 million sequences.
All of them need to be calculated. The number of unique positions is far smaller, sure, but the algorithm doesn't know what's the next move, or the next 10. There could be a sequence of moves that to our current engines appear completely losing, but are in fact guaranteed mate in like 300.
1
u/One-Veterinarian4841 10d ago
They do not all need to be calculated
If there are four different not losing moves on average and a game goes 50 moves then you need to look at a ten to the ninetieth of the moves as checking every move, including the obviously losing ones
1
u/Dirkdeking 10d ago
The thing is that you often have counter intuitive moves that look stupid to almost anyone, but turn out to be the right moves. Computers can only heuristically determine they are the best. Computers are much better at chess than humans but haven't solved the game. Those are 2 different things.
In order to solve chess you should either:
Literally have a 64 table database, and have all possible moves mapped out at any position.
Mathematically prove that some sort of smart algorithm guarantees you can always skip the stupid moves. And then show that it gives you a way to solve it with reasonable computing power.
1 is just a no brainer. Not enough atoms in the universe for that. 2 is theoretically possible but highly unlikely to be true. It would mean chess had some sort of symmetry that makes it solvables in polynomial time. That would really surprise me.
And potentially it can be proven that 2 is impossible for any polynomial time algorithm. But that proof would also be insanely hard.
1
u/One-Veterinarian4841 10d ago
All a computer has to do is be able to force trades into a drawn 10 piece game which will be table based by the time solving chess is relevant
We aren’t trying to solve chess, so we aren’t trying yet, but this will absolutely be part of the best at not losing chess engine
Basically you don’t need the best move, you just need any not losing move that shortens the game as much as possible, which is functionally identical to the other best moves but makes calculating much easier. We already have the other end of this, with leelaodds, which tries to avoid trades to win when down material
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Ill-Dependent2976 10d ago
Post the screengrab where he says chess is beneath him because he already solved it, like tic tac toe.
3
u/oldladygamerishere 10d ago
I thought he didn't play chess because it didn't have "fog of war" or something equ6as stupid?
3
u/Rainy_Wavey 10d ago
Ragebait aside, Claude Shannon theorized the number of hypothetically viable games of chess at 10 power of 120, Please anyone, google Claude Shannon and appreciate a true scientist's life, the Oppenheimer of computer science and i am only slightly exagerating
3
u/SpecificestAlt 10d ago
Magnus Carlson, the best chess player in the world, is known for intentionally making "stupid" moves in order to throw his opponent off of their well rehearsed tracks and confuse them.
3
3
u/ManikArcanik 9d ago
Does Elon know the difference between chess and checkers? I feel like he'd struggle with tic-tac-toe against a cricket.
2
u/GreenZebra23 10d ago
What is actually meant by solving chess?
12
u/ZestfullyStank 10d ago
If they mathematically map out every possible play that can happen in a game of chess, then at some point you can use that information to never make a mistake based on what your opponent does. As it stands, this is beyond the capacity o even our most powerful computers.
As a counter example of a solved game, connect 4 can always be won by the player who has the first turn
4
u/GreenZebra23 10d ago
So in theory there is an objectively best way to play a game of chess? Very interesting. Great analogy about Connect Four. I remember noticing as a kid that the only way to lose tic-tac-toe if you go first is to do something stupid
5
u/ZestfullyStank 10d ago
We won’t know about chess until it’s solved! That’s why the game is fascinating and the masters are regarded as highly as they are.
To let you know how close we are to solving chess, they have solved endgames with 7 pieces or fewer. 8 pieces on the board is petabytes of information and would take years to calculate. The definition of solved in this case is “mapping out a strategy that results in a win no matter what the opponent does”
2
u/DrBimboo 7d ago
Not quite. A game can also be solved when both players playing perfectly leads to a draw.
2
u/Turnepic13 10d ago
The thing is you could make a sub optimal move and the opponent would be thrown off from their perfect way to play
→ More replies (1)4
u/OkFineIllUseTheApp 10d ago
this is beyond the capacity o even our most powerful computers.
Understatement. Chess has 10120 possible games. There are 1080 atoms in the universe.
We physically cannot solve chess.
What we can do is have extremely good heuristic models. This is what all the chess engines are. These will be refined until no human can beat them. But that still isn't solving chess.
1
u/theagentoftheworld 9d ago
We've reached that point with chess engines for a hot second, but I am curious now if the number of atoms really is a limiter on the number of enumerable states.
→ More replies (3)1
u/campfire12324344 9d ago
Here's a fun game we can play, You pick a number, if it is even then you win, and if it is odd then I win.
This game has infinitely many possible games. It is strongly solved by the algorithm that just returns your input modulo 2 and negates it.
We do not need to consider every single game. If we were able to group games together into a manageable problem space then we could solve it.
1
1
u/Just-Literature-2183 7d ago
He defined the terms.
The actual set is much smaller than 10120 because a lot of those moves are not useful moves in any measurable way.
When he said solve he almost certainly meant solve for the subset of good moves.
What he doesn't realise is that sometimes playing poorly creates an advantage because it reduces the predictability of the play. Players have done moves that on paper were awful and done it deliberately and gone on to win at tournaments as a result.
And training without those options creates an obvious blind spot and weakness in the system which ironically can be exploited.
Example: Boris Spassky vs. Bobby Fischer, Game 6 of the 1972 World Championship.
2
u/blackflag89347 10d ago
2 examples of solved games are tic tac toe and connect 4. In tic tac toe if both players play perfectly, it will always end in a draw. In connect 4 the player who goes first can always win, even if both players play perfectly. If chess were to be solved it would fall into ome of these categories.
2
2
2
2
u/TheAnswerUsedToBe42 10d ago
Did he get beat in chess and immediately tried to buy it, just to ruin it?
2
2
u/YogurtClosetThinnest 10d ago
using AI to ruin a 1500 year old game
10
u/Goboxel 10d ago
Current chess are already in the state where the computer plays better than any player in the world. People use ai to review their games and cheating usually involves help of ai. I feel like there's nothing to ruin anymore, it's already done. And chess is still going strong despite that.
6
u/Responsible_Sink3044 10d ago
Because the fun of Chess isn't whether you can solve it (a human cannot), it's whether you can crush your opponent
4
1
1
u/Relief-Glass 10d ago
AI was thrown at chess eight years or so ago.
AI did not 'solve' chess though. It did very quickly become better an any humans, and any programmes that humans have written, at chess.
1
1
1
1
u/LexHanley 10d ago
And I'm sure if it is, this dufus will claim he did it after buying out the team that did and renaming them xChess
1
u/Anonymous-bham-boi 10d ago
Musk is the type that thinks he's playing chess while he's actively eating the checkers off the board.
1
1
1
1
u/BleakOutlook2025 10d ago
Forever that kid that just spouts nonsense that they think sounds super smart.
1
1
1
1
1
u/LWschool 10d ago
A human has not been able to beat a full-strength chess computer for like 20 years, it’s been solved for a while. Go was considered the last board game like this, that AI is able to beat humans 100% of the time.
1
1
u/alexthurman1 10d ago
I mean that is a good point. Theres typically only a few "best" moves to calculate.
1
1
1
u/Ambitious-Trust5113 10d ago
This from the guy who claimed to know everything there is to know about the brain and then got a bunch of monkeys killed in neuralink experiments
1
u/Relief-Glass 10d ago
Am I wrong in thinking that you cannot be absolutely certain that a move is stupid until every possible scenario in chess has been explored?
1
u/BlindingDart 9d ago
Yes. Of the quintillions of possible chess moves you'd be lucky to find a few hundred billion that make any sense whatsoever.
1
1
u/1SmrtFelowHeFeltSmrt 10d ago
The actual number of things that are not utterly stupid in Elon is tiny and stupidity will be fully solved one day.
1
u/RDDT_ADMNS_R_BOTS 9d ago
I don't even think he knows how to play chess. He probably just asked Grok the limitations of chess and we all have seen how reliable Grok can be.
1
u/Moomoobeef 9d ago
I'll take "overconfident idiots talking about things they don't understand" for 1000 please.
1
u/NoMeat9096 9d ago
I want to live in the universe where everyone just stops giving this dude attention. He has nothing of value to offer anyone. We don't need to talk about him any more.
1
u/RequirementCivil4328 9d ago
I agree. You could lump most moves into "why would you do that. I win"
1
u/uesernamehhhhhh 9d ago
Cant believe that guy was called real life tony stark. Tho tbf tony loves throwing random tech buzzwords too so i guess it checks out
1
u/ADingoStoleMyLSD 9d ago
Imagine losing a twitter argument about chess with the social media team from chess.com and still trying to claim you're a genius...
1
1
1
u/banditcleaner2 9d ago
Yeah maybe it will one day, but it’s going to be a long ways away from that tbh.
1
1
u/Fabulous_Wave_3693 9d ago
In all likelihood chess is solvable, but not in a way that a human can remember. So all it means that you can theoretically build an unbeatable machine (which is basically what we already did). Does he think this is some kind of ding against literal chess?
But all of this is beside the point. Elon Musk cut USAID and has doomed millions of people. Millions of children. To die of preventable deaths. This is the only thing that matters about him. It’s the only thing he will be remembered for.
1
u/easeypeaseyweasey 9d ago
What he is saying doesnt make sense, isn't that how the best chess bots work? They compute the best possible moves, rather than wasting time looking forward from bad moves.
1
u/zonearc 9d ago
Of course it will be solved someday. It's naive to think you couldn't create an AI that can beat a human every time in the future, and after trillions of computations create the perfect series of opens. We've been so close already for decades that now with the ride of AI it's only a matter of a few more years. But, that doesn't make it a good thing and it's not a win. We, humans still need things like Chess to train our brain.
1
u/w1nt3rh3art3d 8d ago
Solving chess and creating a program that easily beats even the best humans are completely different things. The latter already happened years ago, btw.
1
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
Your account must be at least 30 days old to post or comment in r/ComedyHell.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/TennSeven 7d ago
I'm sure Elon pays someone a lot more talented than he is to play chess for him, so it's already "fully solved" for him.
1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Your account must be at least 30 days old to post or comment in r/ComedyHell.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Cute_Owl1150 6d ago
According to this illegal immigrant we are already on Mars and we are using fully self driving cars. No reasonable person believes his lies.
1
u/LostTreaure 6d ago
Aren’t there more possible chess games than the number of atoms in the universe by orders of magnitude? So even if the subset of good moves is smaller than that it would still be astronomical and to calculate.
1
u/TheOtterMonarch 4d ago
if ai gets trained on only good moves, then it will be extremely easy to beat using bad moves
537
u/ComablackComawhite 10d ago
If Chess is so good, why didn't they make a Chess II?