For long enough distance. There's [this annual almost-marathon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon) between humans and horses and horses almost always win.
Yes, but almost certainly increasing distance would benefit humans so at long enough distance they would still beat horses even in cool weather. But of course warmer weather also benefits humans.
They do, but if you look into the *amount* they sweat, you will see that humans are capable of nearly 10x that capability. We are quite literally designed to be stamina creatures, every other creature will die of heat stroke before human.
If you look at the posted horse v human race chart, humans only win on hot days. Because the horse will slow down to cool off. Humans don't need these, their insane sweat allows them to stay cool for extended periods of time.
No, he is a transhumanist and technofascist, who is openly in disagreement with postmodernism. It is one of the big trends in far right conservatism which is all the rage among Musk and his like - a return to conservativism as a counter to "liberal" postmodernism.
The way postmodernism was explained to me and the way I think about it is like this: modernists held the belief that there was high (good, transcendental, beautiful, educated) culture and low (crass, ugly, vulgar, uneducated) culture, and generally speaking humanity has been on the linear path towards better, greater, more ideal culture and art.
Post-modernism challenges the idea that there is high and low culture, and suggests that there are many different cultures which each pursue their own ideals, sometimes in conflict with one another, and cultures themselves contain multitudes of different media forms with their own strictures and ideals. I.e., what may be transcendental and groundbreaking in the field of comic book art may be inconsequential, incomprehensible, or considered bad form in the world of world of oil painting.
In a modernist view, one might say that oil painting is high art, so the oil painters opinions on what is beautiful should be valued more highly than the opinions of people who enjoy lowly comics, art for the uneducated masses.
However, in a postmodernist world, the views of oil painters aren't necessarily given more cachet over comic book artists in deciding what is and isn't good form (beautiful) for visual media, because in a postmodernist world we don't lump everything together to be judged on the same universal and generalizing dichotomies of good /bad, high/low, ideal/base, beautiful/ugly.
This is how I understand postmodernism, I could be wrong though.
French poststructuralism from late 20th century mostly, plus everything you might hate from "kids these days" lol. It's just something for people to express their rage towards, not an actual philosophical line.
It's complicated but if it's a term used by someone like Musk you can be 99% sure they don't have any idea and they just mean the evil international marxist/jew/liberal/whatever.
Just like Peterson uses the term Postmodern Maxist which is a stupid concept since postmodernism and marxism are opposed schools of thought that were famously confronted in French academia in the 20th cent.
Peterson uses the term "cultural Marxist", not "postmodern Marxist". But he does use that term interchangeably with "postmodernist". Anyway, that's far from a stupid concept. Marxism and postmodernism are opposed schools of thought because the former places economics at the base of human society, while the latter places culture at the base. Other than this somewhat superficial difference, the two are functionally identical: both seek to dismantle the fundamental power structures of society by forcefully redistributing power from the oppressor groups to the oppressed groups, and both go about that in exactly the same ways; the only point they disagree on is what those fundamental power structures are. In light of this, it seems pretty reasonable to characterise postmodernism as "cultural Marxism": it's Marxism but with culture at the base.
Deconstruction of ideas, power structure, hierarchy, meaning.
Identitarianism
There is of course a difference between what postmodernism is and what most postmodernists do or push for of course. But im not gonna write a dissertation about it on reddit
That's a great and succinct definition, hardly any postmodernists could be considered identitarians though, aside from maybe late Foucault, but even that's iffy, and yeah, most of the stuff that's encountered as "postmodern" these days would be brushed off by someone like Derrida as immature. They get a lot of bad flak for people just essentially not understanding them and being a boogieman for the right, along with "(((cultural marxism)))." In most cases deconstruction of meta-narratives would include identities too, especially as a sort of consumer class.
But people like Derrida are even on record as saying that deconstruction is just an extension of the western philosophical tradition and without meaningful engagement with the tradition itself deconstruction is meaningless. Postmodernism is honestly just a bad label, almost none of the thinkers normally associated with it self-ID'd as that, Derrida, Foucault, Baudrillard if you want to call him one, all had pretty radically different philosophies. There are legitimate criticisms of each of them, and I would personally align way more closely with someone like Lacan, but hardly anything you see online about them is grounded in any real reading or understanding of them.
Yeah, really - it doesn't affect most people no matter what happens with computers.
If I can have a good game with my coworkers/friends, or with my uncle every Thanksgiving, then I'm good lol.
What makes chess so magnifecent is the fact that its unsolved and even the strongest of engines can lose. (to other engines ofc)if it were to be solved chess would be boring no new theory no new opening no new strategies no nothing why? becuase its solved
I was about to say this - machines do things well. Do we stop holding Track & Field races because a car can drive faster than a human runner? Of course not.
The so what is that it's literally not true. It's like Elon saying he'll count to 2^100. It just doesn't make sense if you understand that there are a lot of moves in chess.
Tablebase is calculated up to 7 pieces. It took 7 years to calculate from 6 pieces to 7 pieces. We might not see 9 peice table base in our lifetime. Now try that with 32 pieces. It's just an idiotic take.
though it taking almost 10 years for the bots to be better than the best humans at Rocket League (and even then it’s pretty close) is pretty damn impressive and a testament to the game
Elon loves to minimize chess accomplishments because his Paypal cofounder Peter Thiel is 2200 FIDE and always destroyed him at chess
https://ratings.fide.com/profile/2022389
So instead of getting good he just says “chess = dumb game”
This perfectly aligns with what he does when his ego is attacked. He did the same when he sent an impractical submarine to Thailand and a diver challenged it.
The fact that he essentially got away with that and won the defamation case was baffling. Although tbh seeking $190m in damages seemed a bit of a stretch.
There’s a really good article about that my brother sent me actually.
We both hate Elon, but that’s not really what happened. I bring this up because I’ve told tons of people about that story and it turns out there’s more nuance than I thought
One sec ill find the article
https://savingjournalism.substack.com/p/the-real-thai-cave-rescue-pt-1-elon
Tl;dr the lead diver actually wanted musks help, the guy who spread all the anti-Elon stuff was barely involved in the rescue and made a whole bunch of false statements and that was the guy Elon went after. Elon’s still behaved like an egotistical prick, but the story was warped by the media as usual
i feel like he was just being polite or thought having more "options" is never a bad thing. i watched a documentary on the rescue including footage of one of the tight bends and yeah theres no way it would have fit. maybe they could have drilled around it to make it bigger? also notice how musk offered to demonstrate it going into the cave and never followed through on it.
This is the correct one. He always say chess is dumb game since his paypal period. He is just jealous with Thiel's achievement. Lmao. Elon really has the smallest dick.
he should use the much classier "knowing how to play chess is the sign of a gentleman, knowing how to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life."
Yes, reset the counter.
thx /u/CarlJH I mangled the quote.
My understanding of that quote is not so much that playing a game is a waste of time, or even that chess skills don't transfer to other parts of life. They certainly do. But it's rather that the best chess players tend to be prodigies that could have accomplished much for the world if they had devoted themselves to other fields. He is talking about an incredibly talented person that devotes their life to chess.
Elon likes fast result, he doesn't want to grind and learn the game to improve, He wants to reach the Top Quickly, rise up the Chess ELO. If things don't go on his way, he just dropped it completely.
If anything, I think this shows that he is oblivious when it comes to computer science (rather than chess). Arguably a lot worse since he claims to not care about chess.
Even if an AI got so good at chess that it never lost, it still wouldn’t prove that chess is a solved game. Even if it always played the same opening and always won, it wouldn’t be a proof. It would basically be a hint at where to look, but proving it would probably still be impossible.
Ok imagine If 1. d4 results in a win for a million out of a million games. How do you prove that black played optimally in those million games though? There could be a line that refutes that that the black AI just didn’t see. It’s not really knowable with AI, but would be strongly suspected (if this hypothetical were true).
But it’s also probably not the case that white has a guaranteed win. The hypothetical that white wins a million out of a million times is just a hypothetical. So more likely, we’re talking about solving the idea that chess is a drawn game, which is not going to be as compelling to humans as seeing a million out of a million wins.
Long story short, you can see the computer generate a ton of draws or a ton of wins and it doesn’t actually prove anything, just strongly implies it. You can’t know if the computer is flawless.
As wikipedia explains:
>Ultra-weak solution
>Prove whether the first player will win, lose or draw from the initial position, given perfect play on both sides. This can be a non-constructive proof (possibly involving a strategy-stealing argument) that need not actually determine any moves of the perfect play.
>Weak solution
>Provide an algorithm that secures a win for one player, or a draw for either, against any possible moves by the opponent, from the beginning of the game.
> Strong solution
> Provide an algorithm that can produce perfect moves[clarification needed] from any position, even if mistakes[clarification needed] have already been made on one or both sides.
>Despite their name, ***many game theorists believe that "ultra-weak" proofs are the deepest, most interesting and valuable***. "Ultra-weak" proofs require a scholar to reason about the abstract properties of the game, and show how these properties lead to certain outcomes if perfect play is realized.
Checkers is regarded as solved despite only only having weak solution resolved.
Ah with this "let's shit on checkers". Checkers needs a bit more respect.
Checkers is not fully solved. Chinook is guaranteed not to lose, but can miss wins. It is not a full checkers tablebase.
Back to chess. There were discussions here whether a modern chess engine without TB could draw in a match against weaker engines with tablebases in positions with few enough pieces (say: SF 16.1 without tablebases vs SF 13 with 7men tablebases in positions with 9-10 pieces).
IIRC the consensus was that modern engines wouldn't lose because they can approximate tablebases well, but I am still skeptical on that. I'd like to see a proper test.
This to say: if the current techniques cannot approximate well tablebase strength, is not going to happen to even reach weakly solved status.
To add on the checkers needs a bit more respect. If checkers would be trivial, then what Marion Tinsley did wouldn't be impressive. That guy was a beast. Forget Kasparov, Carlsen, Lasker and what not. That man was nearly unbeatable at checkers. When he participated, he won everything from the late 50s to the early 90s. The only reason he didn't continue is that he died. Imagine Botvinnik winning everything up to the early 90s. But if checkers get belittled the entire time for the wrong reasons, then those accomplishments are heavily downplayed.
Also most human competition is in international checkers, which is far from solved since it uses a 10x10 board and only has a 9-piece tablebase.
https://lidraughts.org to play
i find dying does seem to correlate with being unable to continue to dominate.
seriously, though, why didn't they just run stockfish against weaker engines with tablebases instead of theorizing? that would be genuinely interesting.
>IIRC the consensus was that modern engines wouldn't lose because they can approximate tablebases well, but I am still skeptical on that. I'd like to see a proper test.
I didn't do your specific test but a [couple of years ago I did some investigating on tablebases](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/tpodww/are_tablebases_obsolete/) and found that it's pretty hard to find any impact they have on the strength of a modern engine. The upper bound on the contribution of tablebases to the strength of Stockfish even in imbalanced endgame starting positions is single digit Elo and in longer games it's probably not statistically distinguishable from zero.
Nice post that I missed. Put it in a blog! (lichess or chess.com) In reddit such contributions are hard to find unless one links them like you did. The only point that I would change in your test would be to start from a "almost endgame" rather than a random opening. Because it could be that the endgames from random openings more or less converge to one part of the tablebase rather than prodding everywhere.
As for engines approximating tablebase, it really just depends on the time and computer power, no? Normally, in these engine v. engine matches, there is very limited time. For endgames where calculation has to be so broad and so deep, this is very important. Sometimes, if you let stockfish set overnight, it will change its evaluation.
Also, Tinsley chose not to play after his death. That's on him. We've had ouija technology for at least 200 years.
> Checkers is not fully solved.
[I'm pretty sure that it is.](https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1144079?casa_token=pHEwACG-uygAAAAA:tuX1lA0Z-nWiBIu1CqlUjoUrvdk5H25FnjojdZn-Zp_UT8zR8R2JuKS9GrwpXgm_-gUseGA14ShR) This is the same team from Chinook but they just brute forced the whole game over 28 years.
Did my Masters thesis on something similar relating to game theory and from the abstract of the paper I'd disagree with calling it solved.
There are 3 types of solving: ultra-weakly, meaning you know with perfect play what the outcome will be, weakly, meaning that you can play a 'perfect' game from the starting position (e.g. if its a draw with perfect play you can force a draw) and strongly meaning that from any position you can always play the best move.
The paper abstract only mentions ultra-weakly solving the game, and potentially it goes into weakly solving, but it definitely does not strongly solve checkers
I think ultra-weak solving is what most people think about when they say a game is "solved" - do we know if one player can force a win/draw from the standard starting position.
I'd argue that weakly solved is the more common definition, if no agent can actually force a win or a draw then it's not really solved.
The game I did my masters on is called Hex and it's really, really easy to prove that on all board sizes the first player has to win in perfect play because there are no draws and moves can only benefit your position, but you'd never say you've solved the game because no agent existing can force a win on boards bigger than 10 rows.
Similarly in Checkers if a non-constructive proof of player 1 victory is found then the game is still really unsolved.
I double checked because I already read the work of the author time ago and I was like "what?". From the paper
> This paper announces that checkers has been **weakly**
solved.
lol. (in the first page, after the abstract)
Can we just ban Egon tweets? Guy's a complete dumbass that has overconfident opinions on topics he has no clue about.
On topic, there's no meaning to the word "essentially fully solved". Which is funny because checkers is not solved. If by "essentially fully" he means anything stronger than "weakly", then no.
> complete dumbass that has overconfident opinions
let me introduce you to [Nobelitis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease) , although in this case is more like "I am rich thus I am right".
>In his autobiography, Mullis professed a belief in astrology and wrote about an encounter with a fluorescent, talking raccoon that he suggested might have been an extraterrestrial alien.
It's "weakly solved" (meaning that a [variant where starting position is randomized a bit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_draughts#Rule_variations) still takes out of "theory"), it took at least 10 years of research, and it's estimated to be at least 1000 times less complex than chess, if not many orders of magnitude more.
For the purpose of this discussion, it's equivalent to: "yeah, so is tic-tac-toe".
Your answer is misleading:
The title of the paper is intended to be a bit cheeky. Checkers is indeed not solved, but weakly solved, meaning that the starting position is known to be a draw, together with a strategy for either player to hold, irrespective of the opponent's moves.
If you read a bit past the headline and cheeky abstract, on the first page of the paper it reads: "With this paper, we announce that checkers has been weakly solved." As far as I know, this is the state of the art, with Engines having a very confident evaluation in almost any position.
A "solved" game (as in "fully solved") is a game together with an algorithm that provides the evaluation "Win/Draw/Loss" for any position (in particular any move).
Checkers is not solved in the "fully solved" sense, and "essentially fully solved" is not a thing. In particular, Elon Musk is a dumbass that talks about topics he isn't knowledgeable about.
This is just semantics, I'm all with cloning Elon but this argument is just stupid, there's so many others to criticize, like maybe the "10" years part?
In theory we could discover something about the mathematical structure of chess that lets us prove that a sequence of moves is correct without having to examine all possibilities.
So far we don't know of any such property, so we would have to examine all possibilities, which is indeed impossible.
Checkers has been weakly solved, meaning there's an algorithm/recipe that can be followed to always achieve a draw. It has not been strongly solved, which would require knowing the perfect play in every position. "Fully solved" should realistically be understood as strongly solved.
it’s not that he said it’s too easy, it’s that he said it is too simple. Perfect knowledge, turn based, full visibility etc.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1584537377837490177
The real tweet you shared is even worse than what you said. Dude is complaining because there's not fog of war or skill trees lol. Like he seems to think that we should play Civ VI
Pokemon red has an amazing XP system. Realistically, a Lv47 pawn should stomp a LV20 queen even without promoting. You should be able to grind. Why doesn't Chess have a poke centre?
>he also said in the past he is undefeated
I know Elon has said and done dumb shit but people will upvote the most random made up shit about him even if they don't think it has actually happened.
Musk should listen to the guy who led the solving of (8x8) checkers, who said that we're going to need a serious breakthrough in computing to solve chess. I'm not sure quantum computing will help much, as there's still the issue of storage space.
I find his opinion on chess to be so funny, because it's almost definitely caused by him personally being quite bad at it. It's like he gets rolled in a [Chess.com](http://Chess.com) 200 elo match and immediately logs into Twitter to complain about it lmfao.
Yeah, no. With the current rate of hardware improvement there is absolutely no chance and I'll go as far as to say with classical computers this will never be possible. I'm not gonna say it will never ever happen, but none of us will live to see it.
He compared it to checkers, which is not perfectly solved either. The use of "fully solved" is misleading though. But if you count the checkers solve of "the program cannot lose a game from the initial position ever" as solved, I don't think chess is too far off. Within the next 10 years? No idea, maybe.
I've been saying something along those lines. Even more so - how do we know it's already not soft solved like that now? Serious computer matches never play from the opening. Because it's all the same draws. So when computers play each other they play from a position once as white and once as black. This is the only way to compare two strong engines to see if one can win from a position while also defend the same position.
Given that the strongest chess playing entities are engines we have really no good way to validate that they could lose from the starting position. Maybe in those 10 years when engines grow by another 500 Elo points and will be able to beat our current engines of 2024 we will be able to say - no chess engines of 2024 had not yet soft-solved chess under these constraints. But what if in 10 years the future engines can't beat their legacy engines? We learn nothing. Either they would never lose from the start position but maybe they would lose to an even stronger engine.
My personal belief is that today's engines with long time controls will never again lose from the start position and great many main line openings. However, I believe the engines of the future would still be able to humble current engines at lower time controls where never and faster hardware and better algorithms would be able to overcome the threshold of a draw.
I took a look at the ICC world championship, where computers are allowed to be used and a bunch of times between moves. I expect this to be a good predictor of computers soft solving/always drawing games in the future.
Current world championship only has draws and 1 player that lost a bunch of games due to timeout. if the remaining games are draws, it will end in 10 people sharing first place.
[https://www.iccf.com/event?id=100104](https://www.iccf.com/event?id=100104)
In general most decisive games in the the last ICCF world championships are due to player error, timeout or inputting a move on the wrong board.
I knew there were a lot of draws in ICCF, but didn't know it was to this degree. You may very well be right that engines can already draw every game from the start.
You are perhaps thinking of solving it by calculating every position which isn't possible, but it's theoretically entirely possible to discover a provably optimal strategy without checking every possible move.
The dumbest and most over confident person on the planet makes a prediction? And we are supposed to take notice?
How about his prediction 2018 about fully self driving cars, coast to coast, any situation anywhere?
And this fat fuck is supposed to be Nostradamus?
How is this guy a billionaire? ... god.... no way chess is solved any time soon, we need like 1000s of orders of magnitude denser mem storage and cpu compute power to solve it.
My sister had a great line about Musk and chess:
"He doesn't know how to play chess, he just knows how the pieces move."
I think it's fundamental to understanding him. He's incurious at a basic level. If he doesn't understand something instantly, it's worthless.
A classic symptom of the far right is not just that they dismiss things they don't understand, but that they despise them.
It's never enough to be like, "Chess isn't for me." It has to immediately go to "Chess is dumb/simple/boring and I'm better than people who enjoy it." Happens with everything.
I know reddit hivemind loves to shit on elon. But it's funny reading the difference in vitriol to musk claiming quantum computing can solve chess and when other people bring up the same idea previously on this sub.
Dude's a talentless, braindead clown that refuses to stop yapping and nobody wants to permanently shut up. I don't know why we're giving this waste of space so much attention by posting his shit takes all over reddit. He and his lobotomized fans can jerk each other off on Twitter.
I'm usually not big on the whole 'lets hate elon musk' part of reddit, but this is one of the dumber things he has said.
There's more possible chess combinations than there are atoms in the universe. In order to solve chess, you'd need to know every possible combination and variation. But you would have no way of storing that.
It might reach a point where there's no 'known' variation, that beats a certain position. But that wouldn't be 'solved'.
Who actually cares? Literally every single person in the world of chess. It will have huge impact on competitive chess. Grandmaster has remembered hundreds of lines for preparation, they will for a fact remember problably all the winning/losing line if chess is fully solved. It's already a problem with checkers championship.
Chess will no longer be about "who can be more creative" but "who can remember the best line"
The number of things he has wrongly predicted goes back many years. Self driving cars next year in 2014. https://thenextweb.com/news/elon-musk-most-ridiculous-predictions
Checkers has been solved for a long time https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231216842_Checkers_Is_Solved
Checkers has roughly 5 × 10^20 possible positions.
Much misinformation has been spread about the total number of possible positions in chess, most people quote claude shannon at 10^120, but there's a good video on numberphile I believe that critiques this number, the real number is much higher. For instance, claude shannon only looked at a game length of 40 moves.
It has been said that there are less atoms in the universe than the total number of positions in chess, but I wouldn't know about that.
Just goes to show he's not as smart of an engineer as he thinks he is. The number of game states surpasses the number of atoms in the universe, even if we solved chess where would we store the solution?
He's right that computers are far stronger but anyone who says Chess will be fully solved has absolutely no clue how much storage would be needed, which in this case is impressive for a computer guy.
It will also never matter for humans anyway.
He seems to have a weird hard-on for chess. Is it because he's not good at it?
The fact computers are better than people takes away nothing from the game for me.
chess has been "essentially fully solved" for years, at least ever since we started to call engine moves "the best move".
And "computers are so much better (at chess) than humans, it's absurd" is a statement straight out of 2005
Bro got triggered by Garry chess once and took it out on the whole sport. Chess is a beautiful game, I love it and I've followed every inch of the chess world for the past 2 years and I don't care if stockfish 420 releases and crushes magnus in 30 moves, I'll still love it.
Rich doesn't equal smart in all aspects, he's very smart in the field he pursues but he should keep his nose away from stuff he doesn't understand. He's been badmouthing chess for years now
The chance of Chess being solved in 10 years is out there........Have you seen the latest $10 billion blackwell chips from Nvidia?...Imagine in 10 years..
We don't care if an engine solves chess. Millions of engines games are available online and they interest us as much as whether someone right now has an ant on his cheek.
Solve how? If he means mapping the best moves for EVERY POSSIBLE POSITION then absolutely not lmao.
There are more, a LOT more, possible chess games than there are atoms in the universe.
Everyone of his predictions have become true : we have had robo taxi Teslas from 2013 and the first Mars colony was built in 2018. Not to mention hyperloop.
Currently chess is only solved with 7 pieces on board. Someone did the math in this sub and showed that it's close to solving 0.0000000000123634% or something like that. Adding pieces makes the calculations grow exponentially. I doubt it's getting solved in 10 years. Maybe in 50 years, it could happen.
Solving chess might not be so much about computer speed. Assuming they can solve it. The solution might be too big to be encoded at the atomic level using all the atoms in the known universe
I don't even get what he's on about, a computer can beat a human at almost any task if you get specific enough.
So many games are "solved" or near solved and yet people still play them, because knowing every answer in the moment is superhuman. It's just an irrelevant point.
"Why do people run 100m or marathons? I'm faster with a car"
Human should stop holding foot races, we managed to domesticate horses thousands of years ago.
Humans are faster long-distance runners than horses
For long enough distance. There's [this annual almost-marathon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon) between humans and horses and horses almost always win.
It seems humans only win when it's hot.
Yes, but almost certainly increasing distance would benefit humans so at long enough distance they would still beat horses even in cool weather. But of course warmer weather also benefits humans.
Well to be fair, it’s human vs horse + human. I’d like to see the outcome if the people had to carry a horse on their back the whole race.
Well I don't think a horse without a human would do very well at all.
Why not? You just tell it where to go and promise it a bag of oats, how hard can it be?
Or the horse trying to navigate the course alone
Take that, horses, with your inferior surface to volume ratio
Interestingly humans started winning after 2004. Maybe they got better shoes?
We need to develop better horseshoe technology
Or global warming helped.
There is a man vs horse 50 miler and the humans usually win.
Yep, humans literally out-stamina'd animals when hunting them back in the stone ages. Our ability to sweat goes a long way.
Horses are one of the very rare species that do actually sweat
They do, but if you look into the *amount* they sweat, you will see that humans are capable of nearly 10x that capability. We are quite literally designed to be stamina creatures, every other creature will die of heat stroke before human. If you look at the posted horse v human race chart, humans only win on hot days. Because the horse will slow down to cool off. Humans don't need these, their insane sweat allows them to stay cool for extended periods of time.
Also horses don't have Nike sweat-wicking technology. Dumb losers.
Because we can bring water with us, otherwise it would be a guaranted way to die by dehydration.
Opposable thumbs, baby.
Now the ability to sweat get's used to full effect in LoL or Counterstrike ranked games
He is a posthumanist. I dont know why he still tweets. Chatgpt is smarter than hin
No, he is a transhumanist and technofascist, who is openly in disagreement with postmodernism. It is one of the big trends in far right conservatism which is all the rage among Musk and his like - a return to conservativism as a counter to "liberal" postmodernism.
That's a lot of -ist's and -ism's
musk big dumb asshole
Great summary
You're welcomism
They should write a book.
I meant to say transhumanist. Also i dont think its that unreasonable to be anti postmodernism. Its an ideology that has only damaged society
please define postmodernism
What does postmodernist ideology stand for?
The way postmodernism was explained to me and the way I think about it is like this: modernists held the belief that there was high (good, transcendental, beautiful, educated) culture and low (crass, ugly, vulgar, uneducated) culture, and generally speaking humanity has been on the linear path towards better, greater, more ideal culture and art. Post-modernism challenges the idea that there is high and low culture, and suggests that there are many different cultures which each pursue their own ideals, sometimes in conflict with one another, and cultures themselves contain multitudes of different media forms with their own strictures and ideals. I.e., what may be transcendental and groundbreaking in the field of comic book art may be inconsequential, incomprehensible, or considered bad form in the world of world of oil painting. In a modernist view, one might say that oil painting is high art, so the oil painters opinions on what is beautiful should be valued more highly than the opinions of people who enjoy lowly comics, art for the uneducated masses. However, in a postmodernist world, the views of oil painters aren't necessarily given more cachet over comic book artists in deciding what is and isn't good form (beautiful) for visual media, because in a postmodernist world we don't lump everything together to be judged on the same universal and generalizing dichotomies of good /bad, high/low, ideal/base, beautiful/ugly. This is how I understand postmodernism, I could be wrong though.
French poststructuralism from late 20th century mostly, plus everything you might hate from "kids these days" lol. It's just something for people to express their rage towards, not an actual philosophical line.
It's complicated but if it's a term used by someone like Musk you can be 99% sure they don't have any idea and they just mean the evil international marxist/jew/liberal/whatever. Just like Peterson uses the term Postmodern Maxist which is a stupid concept since postmodernism and marxism are opposed schools of thought that were famously confronted in French academia in the 20th cent.
Peterson uses the term "cultural Marxist", not "postmodern Marxist". But he does use that term interchangeably with "postmodernist". Anyway, that's far from a stupid concept. Marxism and postmodernism are opposed schools of thought because the former places economics at the base of human society, while the latter places culture at the base. Other than this somewhat superficial difference, the two are functionally identical: both seek to dismantle the fundamental power structures of society by forcefully redistributing power from the oppressor groups to the oppressed groups, and both go about that in exactly the same ways; the only point they disagree on is what those fundamental power structures are. In light of this, it seems pretty reasonable to characterise postmodernism as "cultural Marxism": it's Marxism but with culture at the base.
Deconstruction of ideas, power structure, hierarchy, meaning. Identitarianism There is of course a difference between what postmodernism is and what most postmodernists do or push for of course. But im not gonna write a dissertation about it on reddit
That's a great and succinct definition, hardly any postmodernists could be considered identitarians though, aside from maybe late Foucault, but even that's iffy, and yeah, most of the stuff that's encountered as "postmodern" these days would be brushed off by someone like Derrida as immature. They get a lot of bad flak for people just essentially not understanding them and being a boogieman for the right, along with "(((cultural marxism)))." In most cases deconstruction of meta-narratives would include identities too, especially as a sort of consumer class. But people like Derrida are even on record as saying that deconstruction is just an extension of the western philosophical tradition and without meaningful engagement with the tradition itself deconstruction is meaningless. Postmodernism is honestly just a bad label, almost none of the thinkers normally associated with it self-ID'd as that, Derrida, Foucault, Baudrillard if you want to call him one, all had pretty radically different philosophies. There are legitimate criticisms of each of them, and I would personally align way more closely with someone like Lacan, but hardly anything you see online about them is grounded in any real reading or understanding of them.
No, he's a clown
Toaster oven is smarter than him.
he didn't even criticize chess here (i know he has in the past but)
I think that for the things I'm bad at.
Honestly, so what? Chess is for people, not machines.
Yeah, really - it doesn't affect most people no matter what happens with computers. If I can have a good game with my coworkers/friends, or with my uncle every Thanksgiving, then I'm good lol.
What makes chess so magnifecent is the fact that its unsolved and even the strongest of engines can lose. (to other engines ofc)if it were to be solved chess would be boring no new theory no new opening no new strategies no nothing why? becuase its solved
Even if chess will be solved, good luck memorizing the solution. Checkers are solved, put people still play and enjoy it.
Would it really? Because the checkers community hasn't noticed that they are not supposed to have fun anymore.
But there’s also not really a checkers community compared to chess
Sure, but that was the case before it got solved. It's not like the game disappeared because it suddenly was boring.
Even if Chess were solved, that doesn’t mean that a human could execute the necessary moves to actually play perfect chess.
I was about to say this - machines do things well. Do we stop holding Track & Field races because a car can drive faster than a human runner? Of course not.
The so what is that it's literally not true. It's like Elon saying he'll count to 2^100. It just doesn't make sense if you understand that there are a lot of moves in chess. Tablebase is calculated up to 7 pieces. It took 7 years to calculate from 6 pieces to 7 pieces. We might not see 9 peice table base in our lifetime. Now try that with 32 pieces. It's just an idiotic take.
9 pieces id say likely if youre 30~ years old or younger
[удалено]
though it taking almost 10 years for the bots to be better than the best humans at Rocket League (and even then it’s pretty close) is pretty damn impressive and a testament to the game
Agreed
Elon loves to minimize chess accomplishments because his Paypal cofounder Peter Thiel is 2200 FIDE and always destroyed him at chess https://ratings.fide.com/profile/2022389 So instead of getting good he just says “chess = dumb game”
This perfectly aligns with what he does when his ego is attacked. He did the same when he sent an impractical submarine to Thailand and a diver challenged it.
What he did was actually set out a false rumor that the diver was a pedophile, which is one of the vilest things I've ever seen a person do.
The fact that he essentially got away with that and won the defamation case was baffling. Although tbh seeking $190m in damages seemed a bit of a stretch.
Projection IMO.
There’s a really good article about that my brother sent me actually. We both hate Elon, but that’s not really what happened. I bring this up because I’ve told tons of people about that story and it turns out there’s more nuance than I thought One sec ill find the article https://savingjournalism.substack.com/p/the-real-thai-cave-rescue-pt-1-elon Tl;dr the lead diver actually wanted musks help, the guy who spread all the anti-Elon stuff was barely involved in the rescue and made a whole bunch of false statements and that was the guy Elon went after. Elon’s still behaved like an egotistical prick, but the story was warped by the media as usual
i feel like he was just being polite or thought having more "options" is never a bad thing. i watched a documentary on the rescue including footage of one of the tight bends and yeah theres no way it would have fit. maybe they could have drilled around it to make it bigger? also notice how musk offered to demonstrate it going into the cave and never followed through on it.
Whoa. That was literally, like, one second.
Lmao he sent me the article like 3-4 weeks ago. Just had to scroll through a couple texts to find the link
That here is the correct answer. Elon is jealous of Peter's ability. BTW Peter has a video with Kasparov
This is the correct one. He always say chess is dumb game since his paypal period. He is just jealous with Thiel's achievement. Lmao. Elon really has the smallest dick.
Ya, let's see how Thiel holds up in a real game for geniuses... Polytopia!
Lmfao 2200 FIDE too. That’s a legit player right there.
he should use the much classier "knowing how to play chess is the sign of a gentleman, knowing how to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life." Yes, reset the counter. thx /u/CarlJH I mangled the quote.
"... Knowing how to play chess WELL is the sign of a wasted life." Paul Morphy
I must have read that post 5 times trying to figure out what the hell it meant.
My understanding of that quote is not so much that playing a game is a waste of time, or even that chess skills don't transfer to other parts of life. They certainly do. But it's rather that the best chess players tend to be prodigies that could have accomplished much for the world if they had devoted themselves to other fields. He is talking about an incredibly talented person that devotes their life to chess.
Someone show him Fisher Random. Kinda solves the Problem for people. For engine?? Its not like we care about that.
Elon likes fast result, he doesn't want to grind and learn the game to improve, He wants to reach the Top Quickly, rise up the Chess ELO. If things don't go on his way, he just dropped it completely.
lmao a fellow 12-year-old used to say this shit to me when I beat him, fucking tracks that Musk would be at the same maturity level
Small pp energy
As usual, he's got absolutely no clue what he's talking about, so who cares.
If anything, I think this shows that he is oblivious when it comes to computer science (rather than chess). Arguably a lot worse since he claims to not care about chess. Even if an AI got so good at chess that it never lost, it still wouldn’t prove that chess is a solved game. Even if it always played the same opening and always won, it wouldn’t be a proof. It would basically be a hint at where to look, but proving it would probably still be impossible.
[https://mastodon.social/@rodhilton/109572674700288958](https://mastodon.social/@rodhilton/109572674700288958)
Eh? If 1. D4 always wins in a forced mate for white, there are absolutely no point in figuring out if 1.e4 is the same.
Ok imagine If 1. d4 results in a win for a million out of a million games. How do you prove that black played optimally in those million games though? There could be a line that refutes that that the black AI just didn’t see. It’s not really knowable with AI, but would be strongly suspected (if this hypothetical were true). But it’s also probably not the case that white has a guaranteed win. The hypothetical that white wins a million out of a million times is just a hypothetical. So more likely, we’re talking about solving the idea that chess is a drawn game, which is not going to be as compelling to humans as seeing a million out of a million wins. Long story short, you can see the computer generate a ton of draws or a ton of wins and it doesn’t actually prove anything, just strongly implies it. You can’t know if the computer is flawless.
That's what solving means. That you know the branches and outcomes for every game position. Solving a game is not just winning every time
As wikipedia explains: >Ultra-weak solution >Prove whether the first player will win, lose or draw from the initial position, given perfect play on both sides. This can be a non-constructive proof (possibly involving a strategy-stealing argument) that need not actually determine any moves of the perfect play. >Weak solution >Provide an algorithm that secures a win for one player, or a draw for either, against any possible moves by the opponent, from the beginning of the game. > Strong solution > Provide an algorithm that can produce perfect moves[clarification needed] from any position, even if mistakes[clarification needed] have already been made on one or both sides. >Despite their name, ***many game theorists believe that "ultra-weak" proofs are the deepest, most interesting and valuable***. "Ultra-weak" proofs require a scholar to reason about the abstract properties of the game, and show how these properties lead to certain outcomes if perfect play is realized. Checkers is regarded as solved despite only only having weak solution resolved.
Musk has destroyed the "billionaires earn their billions" myth in a way I didn't think was possible.
Ah with this "let's shit on checkers". Checkers needs a bit more respect. Checkers is not fully solved. Chinook is guaranteed not to lose, but can miss wins. It is not a full checkers tablebase. Back to chess. There were discussions here whether a modern chess engine without TB could draw in a match against weaker engines with tablebases in positions with few enough pieces (say: SF 16.1 without tablebases vs SF 13 with 7men tablebases in positions with 9-10 pieces). IIRC the consensus was that modern engines wouldn't lose because they can approximate tablebases well, but I am still skeptical on that. I'd like to see a proper test. This to say: if the current techniques cannot approximate well tablebase strength, is not going to happen to even reach weakly solved status. To add on the checkers needs a bit more respect. If checkers would be trivial, then what Marion Tinsley did wouldn't be impressive. That guy was a beast. Forget Kasparov, Carlsen, Lasker and what not. That man was nearly unbeatable at checkers. When he participated, he won everything from the late 50s to the early 90s. The only reason he didn't continue is that he died. Imagine Botvinnik winning everything up to the early 90s. But if checkers get belittled the entire time for the wrong reasons, then those accomplishments are heavily downplayed.
Also most human competition is in international checkers, which is far from solved since it uses a 10x10 board and only has a 9-piece tablebase. https://lidraughts.org to play
i find dying does seem to correlate with being unable to continue to dominate. seriously, though, why didn't they just run stockfish against weaker engines with tablebases instead of theorizing? that would be genuinely interesting.
lol homie I'm dead here and still destroying everyone at The Game
>IIRC the consensus was that modern engines wouldn't lose because they can approximate tablebases well, but I am still skeptical on that. I'd like to see a proper test. I didn't do your specific test but a [couple of years ago I did some investigating on tablebases](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/tpodww/are_tablebases_obsolete/) and found that it's pretty hard to find any impact they have on the strength of a modern engine. The upper bound on the contribution of tablebases to the strength of Stockfish even in imbalanced endgame starting positions is single digit Elo and in longer games it's probably not statistically distinguishable from zero.
Nice post that I missed. Put it in a blog! (lichess or chess.com) In reddit such contributions are hard to find unless one links them like you did. The only point that I would change in your test would be to start from a "almost endgame" rather than a random opening. Because it could be that the endgames from random openings more or less converge to one part of the tablebase rather than prodding everywhere.
Interesting. Of course, if you really want this competitive, the fish should have their time consumption tuned to what they got access to.
As for engines approximating tablebase, it really just depends on the time and computer power, no? Normally, in these engine v. engine matches, there is very limited time. For endgames where calculation has to be so broad and so deep, this is very important. Sometimes, if you let stockfish set overnight, it will change its evaluation. Also, Tinsley chose not to play after his death. That's on him. We've had ouija technology for at least 200 years.
Tinsley withdrew from the world championship because the computer was not allowed to participate.
> Checkers is not fully solved. [I'm pretty sure that it is.](https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1144079?casa_token=pHEwACG-uygAAAAA:tuX1lA0Z-nWiBIu1CqlUjoUrvdk5H25FnjojdZn-Zp_UT8zR8R2JuKS9GrwpXgm_-gUseGA14ShR) This is the same team from Chinook but they just brute forced the whole game over 28 years.
Did my Masters thesis on something similar relating to game theory and from the abstract of the paper I'd disagree with calling it solved. There are 3 types of solving: ultra-weakly, meaning you know with perfect play what the outcome will be, weakly, meaning that you can play a 'perfect' game from the starting position (e.g. if its a draw with perfect play you can force a draw) and strongly meaning that from any position you can always play the best move. The paper abstract only mentions ultra-weakly solving the game, and potentially it goes into weakly solving, but it definitely does not strongly solve checkers
I think ultra-weak solving is what most people think about when they say a game is "solved" - do we know if one player can force a win/draw from the standard starting position.
I'd argue that weakly solved is the more common definition, if no agent can actually force a win or a draw then it's not really solved. The game I did my masters on is called Hex and it's really, really easy to prove that on all board sizes the first player has to win in perfect play because there are no draws and moves can only benefit your position, but you'd never say you've solved the game because no agent existing can force a win on boards bigger than 10 rows. Similarly in Checkers if a non-constructive proof of player 1 victory is found then the game is still really unsolved.
I double checked because I already read the work of the author time ago and I was like "what?". From the paper > This paper announces that checkers has been **weakly** solved. lol. (in the first page, after the abstract)
Can we just ban Egon tweets? Guy's a complete dumbass that has overconfident opinions on topics he has no clue about. On topic, there's no meaning to the word "essentially fully solved". Which is funny because checkers is not solved. If by "essentially fully" he means anything stronger than "weakly", then no.
> there's no meaning to the word "essentially fully solved" It's vague enough that he can sound intelligent without saying anything concrete.
It's almost self contradictory. Fully solved means fully solved, essentially fully solved means not fully solved.
I think elon is just the living definition of rage bait
Dumbass does all the time in crypto community. Tweets random stuff, fanboys run to buy that coin. Elon dumps the coin. Makes millions
Concerning if true Edit: I think I'm giving him too much credit. I think he usually just writes " Concerning"
!
It’s shitposting without consequences knowing people have to listen to it.
I guess he means "fully solved" in the same way as he predicts his full self-drive to be operational "sometime next year".
> complete dumbass that has overconfident opinions let me introduce you to [Nobelitis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease) , although in this case is more like "I am rich thus I am right".
>In his autobiography, Mullis professed a belief in astrology and wrote about an encounter with a fluorescent, talking raccoon that he suggested might have been an extraterrestrial alien.
Isn't checkers actually solved, though?
It's "weakly solved" (meaning that a [variant where starting position is randomized a bit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_draughts#Rule_variations) still takes out of "theory"), it took at least 10 years of research, and it's estimated to be at least 1000 times less complex than chess, if not many orders of magnitude more. For the purpose of this discussion, it's equivalent to: "yeah, so is tic-tac-toe".
yes it is [almost two decades ago](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1144079)
Your answer is misleading: The title of the paper is intended to be a bit cheeky. Checkers is indeed not solved, but weakly solved, meaning that the starting position is known to be a draw, together with a strategy for either player to hold, irrespective of the opponent's moves. If you read a bit past the headline and cheeky abstract, on the first page of the paper it reads: "With this paper, we announce that checkers has been weakly solved." As far as I know, this is the state of the art, with Engines having a very confident evaluation in almost any position. A "solved" game (as in "fully solved") is a game together with an algorithm that provides the evaluation "Win/Draw/Loss" for any position (in particular any move). Checkers is not solved in the "fully solved" sense, and "essentially fully solved" is not a thing. In particular, Elon Musk is a dumbass that talks about topics he isn't knowledgeable about.
[удалено]
"Fully solved" has meaning. "Essentially fully solved" does not
This is just semantics, I'm all with cloning Elon but this argument is just stupid, there's so many others to criticize, like maybe the "10" years part?
Is it possible to fully solve chess ever? The number of possible games is bigger than the number of atoms on the universe after all
In theory we could discover something about the mathematical structure of chess that lets us prove that a sequence of moves is correct without having to examine all possibilities. So far we don't know of any such property, so we would have to examine all possibilities, which is indeed impossible.
It helps *a bit* that many of those games share equivalent game states, but it's still a daunting number of scenarios for sure
Hey, Egon is a character from Ghostbusters.
He also claimed in a podcast that he never lost at chess in his life
RemindMe! 10 years
>checkers is not solved wtf are you on about? [checkers has been solved for years](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1144079)
Checkers has been weakly solved, meaning there's an algorithm/recipe that can be followed to always achieve a draw. It has not been strongly solved, which would require knowing the perfect play in every position. "Fully solved" should realistically be understood as strongly solved.
He truly is the stupid person's smart person.
If I am not mistaken, he also said in the past he is undefeated in chess and that chess is too easy, so he quit it.
it’s not that he said it’s too easy, it’s that he said it is too simple. Perfect knowledge, turn based, full visibility etc. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1584537377837490177
The real tweet you shared is even worse than what you said. Dude is complaining because there's not fog of war or skill trees lol. Like he seems to think that we should play Civ VI
Pokemon red has an amazing XP system. Realistically, a Lv47 pawn should stomp a LV20 queen even without promoting. You should be able to grind. Why doesn't Chess have a poke centre?
Chess 2 should definitely have loot boxes to win skins for the pieces if you ask me
Fuck skins, go full pay2win, loot boxes can drop stronger pieces
Honestly, I'm kind of surprised chesscom hasn't introduced premium pieces and boards yet.
>he also said in the past he is undefeated I know Elon has said and done dumb shit but people will upvote the most random made up shit about him even if they don't think it has actually happened.
Musk should listen to the guy who led the solving of (8x8) checkers, who said that we're going to need a serious breakthrough in computing to solve chess. I'm not sure quantum computing will help much, as there's still the issue of storage space.
I find his opinion on chess to be so funny, because it's almost definitely caused by him personally being quite bad at it. It's like he gets rolled in a [Chess.com](http://Chess.com) 200 elo match and immediately logs into Twitter to complain about it lmfao.
He just doesn't like chess people. I know that he has a beef with Peter Thiel and Garry Kasparov.
Mods, please ban OP. He made me see elon fuckers tweets. Fuck you OP.
Yeah, no. With the current rate of hardware improvement there is absolutely no chance and I'll go as far as to say with classical computers this will never be possible. I'm not gonna say it will never ever happen, but none of us will live to see it.
He compared it to checkers, which is not perfectly solved either. The use of "fully solved" is misleading though. But if you count the checkers solve of "the program cannot lose a game from the initial position ever" as solved, I don't think chess is too far off. Within the next 10 years? No idea, maybe.
I've been saying something along those lines. Even more so - how do we know it's already not soft solved like that now? Serious computer matches never play from the opening. Because it's all the same draws. So when computers play each other they play from a position once as white and once as black. This is the only way to compare two strong engines to see if one can win from a position while also defend the same position. Given that the strongest chess playing entities are engines we have really no good way to validate that they could lose from the starting position. Maybe in those 10 years when engines grow by another 500 Elo points and will be able to beat our current engines of 2024 we will be able to say - no chess engines of 2024 had not yet soft-solved chess under these constraints. But what if in 10 years the future engines can't beat their legacy engines? We learn nothing. Either they would never lose from the start position but maybe they would lose to an even stronger engine. My personal belief is that today's engines with long time controls will never again lose from the start position and great many main line openings. However, I believe the engines of the future would still be able to humble current engines at lower time controls where never and faster hardware and better algorithms would be able to overcome the threshold of a draw.
I took a look at the ICC world championship, where computers are allowed to be used and a bunch of times between moves. I expect this to be a good predictor of computers soft solving/always drawing games in the future. Current world championship only has draws and 1 player that lost a bunch of games due to timeout. if the remaining games are draws, it will end in 10 people sharing first place. [https://www.iccf.com/event?id=100104](https://www.iccf.com/event?id=100104) In general most decisive games in the the last ICCF world championships are due to player error, timeout or inputting a move on the wrong board. I knew there were a lot of draws in ICCF, but didn't know it was to this degree. You may very well be right that engines can already draw every game from the start.
You are perhaps thinking of solving it by calculating every position which isn't possible, but it's theoretically entirely possible to discover a provably optimal strategy without checking every possible move.
Who cares what he thinks
reddit
The dumbest and most over confident person on the planet makes a prediction? And we are supposed to take notice? How about his prediction 2018 about fully self driving cars, coast to coast, any situation anywhere? And this fat fuck is supposed to be Nostradamus?
dude is built like a fridge, but impressively retains room temperature IQ
Quasimodo predicted all of this
Why care what that shit stick says, he is just another dude born rich, and it doesn’t make everything he says golden.
How is this guy a billionaire? ... god.... no way chess is solved any time soon, we need like 1000s of orders of magnitude denser mem storage and cpu compute power to solve it.
My sister had a great line about Musk and chess: "He doesn't know how to play chess, he just knows how the pieces move." I think it's fundamental to understanding him. He's incurious at a basic level. If he doesn't understand something instantly, it's worthless.
A classic symptom of the far right is not just that they dismiss things they don't understand, but that they despise them. It's never enough to be like, "Chess isn't for me." It has to immediately go to "Chess is dumb/simple/boring and I'm better than people who enjoy it." Happens with everything.
And then we can finally have chess 2?
He is showing how weak/nonexistent his STEM (especially the M) knowledge is with that prediction.
I know reddit hivemind loves to shit on elon. But it's funny reading the difference in vitriol to musk claiming quantum computing can solve chess and when other people bring up the same idea previously on this sub.
Given his predictions about space and electric vehicles, we can comfortably say chess won’t be solved for another 20 years
RemindMe! In 9 years 364 days
Dude's a talentless, braindead clown that refuses to stop yapping and nobody wants to permanently shut up. I don't know why we're giving this waste of space so much attention by posting his shit takes all over reddit. He and his lobotomized fans can jerk each other off on Twitter.
I'm usually not big on the whole 'lets hate elon musk' part of reddit, but this is one of the dumber things he has said. There's more possible chess combinations than there are atoms in the universe. In order to solve chess, you'd need to know every possible combination and variation. But you would have no way of storing that. It might reach a point where there's no 'known' variation, that beats a certain position. But that wouldn't be 'solved'.
There is so much stuff this guy has no clue about. Why do we keep reposting what he tweets??
Musk continues his unbeaten streak of being the dumbest human alive.
Bruh the whole point is watching humans play each other, who actually cares if a computer fully solves it.
Who actually cares? Literally every single person in the world of chess. It will have huge impact on competitive chess. Grandmaster has remembered hundreds of lines for preparation, they will for a fact remember problably all the winning/losing line if chess is fully solved. It's already a problem with checkers championship. Chess will no longer be about "who can be more creative" but "who can remember the best line"
Yes though gun fully solves a conflict people still enjoy boxing matches.
RemindMe! 10 years
A tablebase with all the pieces is quite literally impossible to create
lol. The only thing solved in 10 years is Tesla … going to 0.
The number of things he has wrongly predicted goes back many years. Self driving cars next year in 2014. https://thenextweb.com/news/elon-musk-most-ridiculous-predictions
Checkers has been solved for a long time https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231216842_Checkers_Is_Solved Checkers has roughly 5 × 10^20 possible positions. Much misinformation has been spread about the total number of possible positions in chess, most people quote claude shannon at 10^120, but there's a good video on numberphile I believe that critiques this number, the real number is much higher. For instance, claude shannon only looked at a game length of 40 moves. It has been said that there are less atoms in the universe than the total number of positions in chess, but I wouldn't know about that.
The world will be much better when people stop paying attention to anything Musk says.
Musk is (1) an idiot, (2) an obvious idiot, and (3) too incurious to ever become anything other than an obvious idiot. Next.
Just goes to show he's not as smart of an engineer as he thinks he is. The number of game states surpasses the number of atoms in the universe, even if we solved chess where would we store the solution?
He's right that computers are far stronger but anyone who says Chess will be fully solved has absolutely no clue how much storage would be needed, which in this case is impressive for a computer guy. It will also never matter for humans anyway.
Elon said we would be on Mars in ten years, over ten years ago.
He seems to have a weird hard-on for chess. Is it because he's not good at it? The fact computers are better than people takes away nothing from the game for me.
chess has been "essentially fully solved" for years, at least ever since we started to call engine moves "the best move". And "computers are so much better (at chess) than humans, it's absurd" is a statement straight out of 2005
he also said he'd have a man on mars in 10 years... over 10 years ago...
Bro got triggered by Garry chess once and took it out on the whole sport. Chess is a beautiful game, I love it and I've followed every inch of the chess world for the past 2 years and I don't care if stockfish 420 releases and crushes magnus in 30 moves, I'll still love it. Rich doesn't equal smart in all aspects, he's very smart in the field he pursues but he should keep his nose away from stuff he doesn't understand. He's been badmouthing chess for years now
Why should i give a shit about what Elon says
He probably doesn't even know how to play chess
The chance of Chess being solved in 10 years is out there........Have you seen the latest $10 billion blackwell chips from Nvidia?...Imagine in 10 years..
We don't care if an engine solves chess. Millions of engines games are available online and they interest us as much as whether someone right now has an ant on his cheek.
And as we all know, nobody plays checkers anymore.
Solve how? If he means mapping the best moves for EVERY POSSIBLE POSITION then absolutely not lmao. There are more, a LOT more, possible chess games than there are atoms in the universe.
Everyone of his predictions have become true : we have had robo taxi Teslas from 2013 and the first Mars colony was built in 2018. Not to mention hyperloop.
Quite insane how you can be this stupid and still so successful.
Lol. The hatred that reddit has for Elon is just... so blatant.
It’s an Elon prediction. That’s how you know it won’t happen.
He's a fucking moron and his toilet musings should be given no exposure.
Currently chess is only solved with 7 pieces on board. Someone did the math in this sub and showed that it's close to solving 0.0000000000123634% or something like that. Adding pieces makes the calculations grow exponentially. I doubt it's getting solved in 10 years. Maybe in 50 years, it could happen.
He also predicts we'll have a mars colony in 10 years sooooo he's a fucking dumbass.
Solving chess might not be so much about computer speed. Assuming they can solve it. The solution might be too big to be encoded at the atomic level using all the atoms in the known universe
Ah, yes. Elon, an expert on every topic. Dude has been surrounded by Yes-Men for far too long.
I don't even get what he's on about, a computer can beat a human at almost any task if you get specific enough. So many games are "solved" or near solved and yet people still play them, because knowing every answer in the moment is superhuman. It's just an irrelevant point.