this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2025
129 points (99.2% liked)
chapotraphouse
13918 readers
983 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean they aren't large chess models. They can only do language tasks. They don't think, they predict words based on context and its similarity to the corpus they're trained on.
Is chess one of those problems that can be solved if you just memorize every single game ever played and continuously remember as they happen? Probably not. People have been trying that for centuries.
I think we're going to find a lot of things in life can't be solved by computers memorizing stuff and then doing stats on it to get an answer. Tech bros mold themselves after computers though. They think everything is just systems, algorithms, data structures, and math. And not the good math either, the mid-century diet-Rand game theory cold war shit they confuse with human nature.
Well no, it's not a memorization game. Part of a grandmaster's strategy is deciding when to go "off book" and cause their opponent to have to reason through a position. An attribute of a chess engine like Stockfish is its "depth" which is a measurement of how many permutations it searches through in a tree of possibilities. You get some ridiculous number of permutations very quickly on a chess board.
That's not to say that a competitor doesn't do anything assload of memorization of the "correct" moves as proven in landmark games. But you don't just memorize chess and solve it as such like you can do with tic tac toe. Unrelated but I think a spectrum is fun: tic tac toe, solved, memorizable. Connect 4, solved, unmemorizable. Checkers, surprisingly solved, in your dreams. Chess, unsolved.