Transcript:
Elon: The actual number of moves that are not utterly stupid in chess is tiny and chess will be fully solved one day
Chess.com: Skill issue
Elon: Chess is hard for humans, but not for computers. One day, it will be fully solved like checkers. Between now and then, or even after, have fun. People enjoy may games/sports where machines are vastly better.
Chess.com: There are more possible chess games, by about 40 order of magnitude, than atoms in the observable universe. To solve chess, you’d have to map them all. Good luck.
Elon: Wrong, all legal chess positions are ~40 ooms less than the estimated atoms in the Universe. And ASI will figure out ways to solve and compress that are far beyond what we could possibly comprehend. (Here I am arguing with some random intern at a chess website)
Chess.com: I’m a full-time employee
Elon: (something-emoji)
Chess.com: Even my friends don’t text me back that fast
You must log in or register to comment.
I was curious about the orders of magnitude of atoms, chess games, and chess positions, so I looked it up (note that the Chess.com employee said “chess games”, each of which involves a complete sequence of moves, while Musk said “legal chess positions”, which is very different.)
- There are approximately 10^120 possible chess games.
- There are approximately 10^80 atoms in the observable universe.
- There are approximately 4.8 × 10⁴⁴ unique legal board positions.
elon musk is literally https://xkcd.com/1112/
Goal is to NOT be checkmated, so you should always move your pieces towards your king.
Found the fortress player.
That’s way too accurate, lol.
Who wants to even solve chess bruh 😭
“Even my friends don’t text me back that fast” is a wonderful insult.
Our lad just starched the richest man in the world in his own office.
straight up baking soda’d his ass
Laid down the diatomaceous earth around the perimeter.
When I read that line I audibly whispered
”god damn dude”
I verbally oofed
Elon wouldn’t know
So I guess Elon tried to get into chess because it’s a smart people hobby, got demolished, and now is having a sour grapes moment.
Probably also paid others to play for him like with his stupid video games, he’s fucking pathetic.
I would be curious what his highest chess.com raing is. I got to 1650 once, a middling score, more often in the 1500s but don’t play much now.
1650 a middling score?
cries in 800 elo
It’s not middling, it’s an early-advanced rating. For perspective, an Elo differential of 400 implies 10:1 win:loss odds.
Are you on chess.com though or the other one, they have a different lower rating system I think, lichess.com I think the latter might even be non profit but I still used chess.com because I was already there when I learned that.
It’s okay bro, I’ve been practicing getting better at chess for like 10 years now and I’m still 1100. Chess is fucking hard.
1650+ is about the top 40% of chess.com players (say 5%, not all humans).
Pluck a random off the street and your 800 will beat 19 out of 20.
Very much a tommy talerico mentality but somehow musky got the luck
So he just saw “40 orders of magnitude” and decided that just happened to be the same number he needed to make his point (just going the other way).
Lol ok.
Legitimate question; does he know what an order of magnitude is?
No, he clearly does not.
Chess will never be solved because there’s like a gajillion billion moves, probbaly more moves in a chess game than goku has power points when he goes like super duper saiyan
.
Elon Musk sucks
I have been a full ass adult the entire time twitter has existed and I still don’t fucking understand how the thread structure works.
Oh good I thought I was the only one having an aneurysm reading from top to bottom
When you reply to a tweet, the reply is displayed underneath the tweet you’re replying to, so the thread structure normally is from the top down like you would expect. Unfortunately, some people, like the one running the chess account, habitually use retweets/quote tweets instead of replies, which are displayed above the original tweet (with the original tweet indented to the right). This messes up the thread structure.
But for the people doing that it puts their comment first. If there was a better metaphor for shitting all over a commonly agreed upon standard that works well for everyone so you can be at the front then I can’t really think of it.
Its been nearly a decade since I’ve used twitter, but iirc you use a quote retweet so it shows for your followers. If you just reply, and they don’t follow the OP, then it doesn’t show in their feeds
I agree, and don’t get me started on the clusterfuck that is Discord. How the fuck do you navigate that abomination of a GUI?
Want to add a friend? No fucking idea where the button is.
Want to call a friend? No fucking idea how.
And God forbid that you want go create a group call.
Same. And because it sucks I don’t open it often, so wverytime I do have to open it for some stupid reason (somebody sent me something and probably told me to go there to get it) it goes through several minutes of updates and popups bragging about it.
What does it mean to “solve” chess? And what does he mean checkers is “solved”? Shirley, he can’t still be mad that he’s bad at chess, no? (Yes, yes he can)
Solved means that the best move is known for all positions. “Best move” meaning the move that leads to the highest chance of victory vs an opponent that also always plays the best move.
Solving a game means that the way to win/draw it is 100% known
Checkers is weakly solved because if the first person makes a certain move and no matter what the other player does the player going first knows the next move to draw.
Tic-tac-toe is a completely solved game. If you go first and put it in the middle the second player has to go into a corner or lose. If they put it in a corner then the first player goes in a corner and it’s a draw.
Chess could be weakly solved even though there are so many combinations of possible moves.
Like say like a weird strategy existed where black cannot stop white from simply marching all their pawns to the other side of the board with protection and eventually smothers the king.
If just one unstoppable line in chess existed it would be weakly solved
For example, “three in a row” is solved. You literally cannot lose.
… if you start and know what to do. It is perfectly possible to lose for either player. Unless maybe if both players want to lose?
Of coures it is meant “logically”. If you don’t know what to do not even a rubic’s cube is solved.
If you do not start, you draw btw. :)
What I meant is that you can play the game perfectly fine without having solved it. I know because I play once every two decades or so and always lose because forgot the solution.
I love how everyone here is like “hur hur, Elon is a moron” (and of course he is).
But in the end they’re just talking around each other. And are both right it seems.
The number of atoms in the universe is about 10^80. The number of possible games (which the chess.com guy was talking about) was once estimated to be about 10^120 (so 40 magnitudes larger). The number of possible positions is currently estimated at about 10^40 positions (so about 40 magnitudes smaller).
In the end i’d say positions is more important in solve a game than ways to get to those positions. For each position you need to know the perfect next move.
But Elon not noticing he’s talking about something different than the Chess.com guy is… intriguing XD.
I suppose Elon is semi-correct when he says that the total number of positions is less relevant than the total number of positions reachable if one player plays optimally, which will be orders of magnitude smaller. But that’s also kind of impossible to calculate unless you know what optimal play is already.
But Elon not noticing he’s talking about something different than the Chess.com guy is… intriguing XD.
tbf even if they did notice, there’s very little point with arguing with a chess.com
internfull time employee who’s proably very annoyed so it would probably just be a waste of time to point it out.
sometimes the game isnt to win
Tell that to the multimillionaire toddler who hired players to level up his Poe account, just so he could brag to the gaming community.
Exactly!
Even though elon is like a bad James Bond villain he is nothing like the Bond villains from the movies. The movie Bond villains had sophistication and class.
“You expect me to talk?”
“No, Mr Bond - I expect you to shid and cum”
Tbh I hope the next Bond movie has a villain inspired by Musk.
“Most epic, is it not, Mr. Bond?” He says, gesturing to his pleasure palace of screens with anime waifus on them.
They also tended to explode in their evil leir. Usually because of a contraption they set up.
I don’t know what he has against chess, but this is like the 3rd time I’ve seen him try to convince everyone that it’s pointless because of computers.
Another classic example that proves this:
What I take from this is “I can’t cheat, so I won’t play”
“I keep losing because this game is TOO SPUPID”
He is talking about when he was young though
It’s written like a deliberate parody of people like him, it’s so ludicrous.
If it’s real, it’s the first tweet by him I’ve seen that’s actually funny. Perfectly leans into the absurdity of that position.
Lol it means he has the same problem with it that I did: there’s absolutely no random element to blame so when you lose you just fucking lose and that’s all there is to it. The other person’s brain just stepped on your brain and wiped it off on the curb.
Yeah I played a bit as a teenager and after getting demolished several times by old fucks 5 times my age I just couldn’t take it anymore. Felt like there was nothing you could do to surprise them. Like running against a wall.
Generally random factors allow players with less skill to win. I think about that with games a lot.
It’s one of the (many) reasons I don’t really like DND very much. Huge random factor. You can make excellent tactical decisions and lose. You can be an absolute baffoon and triumph.
Some randomness is okay but not like that.
You must not like life lol.
I wouldn’t really characterize many things in life as the same kind of random. Throwing a dart at a dart board isn’t a random action in the same way as rolling dice
Furthermore, dnd’s randomization produces flat probability, which is often jarring.
My theory is that he’s frustrated that he can’t manage a team or pay someone to get better at it for him.
The humility it takes to be a beginner at something is uncomfortable when you have a huge ego.
I mean, he could very easily do both of those things. Chess teams are a thing, and they need sponsors to be able to attend tournaments - I suppose that counts as “managing” a team. Chess coaches are also a thing, and even some of the worst novice players have seen massive improvement in their chess game after being paired up with famous chess streamers, but without him putting in the actual effort to absorb the information, he’ll never get any better.
When all else fails, he could create an account and pay some broke ass GM to smurf for him. Nobody gets rich off of playing chess for a living, so him paying them to improve his elo and then him taking all the credit publicly would be par for the course and highly effective. Nobody is really going to call him out on that because he has a cult of personality surrounding him that built him up to be a genius. I mean, if you ask him to explain why he made a certain move in a high level game, the illusion would fall apart, but the media wouldn’t dare hold his feet to the fire like that.
Wow the most cringe comment possible. Amazing. He keeps doing it.
…Bro wants chess to be Age of Empires? wtf kind of response is this?
Sounds like Radovid in The Witcher 3. You know, the mad, genocidal king.
In truth hes just a huge fire emblem fan and goons to edelgard or something
I’m pretty sure it’s because he can’t stand losing. The man clearly suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder.
Right? I’m sure he expected to immediately be a god at chess with no studying or practice, then got upset when that wasn’t the case.
Yes, because of his financial success, he considers himself a genius—which he very obviously never was. This is a common trait among billionaires. Many of them are psychopaths who have amassed their wealth through utter unscrupulousness, irresponsibility in the form of an absurd willingness to take risks, and sheer luck.
In the case of Musk, Thiel, and various others, that stroke of luck was PayPal. That company was so successful that it made all of its investors immeasurably rich—it was more a matter of chance that PayPal succeeded, and everything that followed really wasn’t all that difficult because that kind of money cannot lose anymore no matter how ridiculous stupid someone might be.
That’s precisely the problem: We only hear about the people who bet everything on one card and won—they’re portrayed as geniuses, which they never were. We never hear anything about all those who failed miserably—and that’s the vast majority.
Billionaires aren’t geniuses or even above-average in intelligence. Their financial success has, in the rarest of cases, anything to do with intelligence.
Some of them might be considered marketing geniuses, like Jobs was.
I would rather consider Steve Wozniak than Steve Jobs. Jobs was undoubtedly excellent at selling products, and he was certainly a smart (and also ruthless) businessman, but the pioneer—and the one who actually “did the thing”—was Wozniak.
It’s true, of course, that Wozniak probably wouldn’t have been able to make his product a success on his own, but that’s precisely where the problem lies: Bill Gates is certainly no fool either, but DOS—the product that made Microsoft the billion-dollar-company that it is today—was developed by someone else, namely Gary Kildall. Gates’s achievement consisted mainly of making a lot of money from it. He did just that, and did it well, while Kildall was fobbed off with a ridiculously small sum relative to the product’s success, since he was in a weak position at the time.
Although Gates was far more technically adept than Jobs, his core qualities were essentially the same—a good sence for business and a utter lack of scruples: Kildall never received a bonus payment from Microsoft for his work that would have even remotely acknowledged his importance.
There are many people in the IT sector who are worthy of admiration, but almost none of those who truly deserve it are among those the industry or rather the public celebrates as pioneers or visionaries—these are almost exclusively businesspeople who played only a marginal role, if any, in the development of the products they market.
In my view, success stories like Apple or Microsoft are fundamentally no longer possible today, since visionary spirit, wisdom, and inventiveness have been permanently replaced by the inhuman logic of cutthroat capitalism, which the U.S., above all, embodies. Its heroes are always the wrong ones—not those who have advanced humanity through their achievements, but always those who have known how to exploit others particularly ruthlessly for their own ends. These people lead the Western world today, which is why it stands on the brink of total collapse, since these people know nothing but boundless greed.
They are utterly unfit to lead millions upon millions of people—yet that is precisely what they seek to do in their pathological hubris.
The thing about The Woz is, he showers.
I really think Jobs dying was the start of the tech industry enshittification.
While he was a massive cunt and didn’t personally develop the products, he pushed his people to innovate, and the rest of the industry followed to try to keep up.
Once iPhones became yearly iterative bullshit, the industry followed.
But Moore’s Law slowing down does come into play.
It may be that his death marked a turning point, in a sense: He had already been forced out of his role as CEO by business executives in 1985 and didn’t return until 1997, when the company was on the brink of collapse. He then truly turned the company around through innovation: first with the iPod, then with the iPhone—both products that changed the world. I don’t want to downplay this foresight at all, and I also think that Jobs was someone who cared about the cause—about products that are meaningful and useful.
Nevertheless, I don’t believe the start of enshittification can be pinned to the date of his death. Rather, he was one of those, who laid the groundwork for it—here’s an example: soon, Google will tighten the screws and design the Play Store along the closed model that Apple introduced back in the day.
In short: I think there are many other reasons. Jobs was an outstanding businessman, but he lived in a different world than the one we live in today.
My lay-person perspective is Jobs pioneered enshittification. The iPod was not an mp3 player, you had to use proprietary format music, which needed to be loaded with iTunes, a piece of proprietary software that acted almost like a virus once installed on your machine.
Did you write that wall of text to say that Wozniak was the marketing genius instead of Jobs?
I’m pretty sure they were saying that while Woz was the real genius that made the product, simply making a superior product isn’t a guarantee it’ll be successful.
In reality, you need both people.
He understood the market and knew what products to put there, I’d say he is a genius at that - but imo a marketing genius would be someone who can sell anything no matter how shitty the product is, so i’d say that term would be better fitting for his competitors at Microsoft for example.
If you read “careless people” you see that Zuckerberg is the same. His minions purposefully lose at Catan with him to make him happy.
We know what he has against chess, he sucks at it because he is a moron.
Can’t lose to chess if you refuse to play it
Greetings Professor Falken
I enjoy see sport competitions because I like to see what humans are capable of. I don’t need a so-called genius to prove that we can create robots running faster than humans. Likewise I don’t need to be told that Stockfish is stronger than Carlsen because then what? We should stop playing because a machine is better?
Also, what does “solving chess mean”? We already have algorithms trying every possible move
No no see, we can “solve chess” and find the one path that will always win no matter what.
Then we can stop plahing, duh.
/s
Modern chess players are much stronger than last century precisely because they train against stockfish and use it to analyse the optimal move.
I knew Melon Husk was a moron years ago. Just before the release of the Cyberdumpster, he had made an off-the-cuff statement about the quality of said vehicle as “having a tolerance of plus or minus five microns”. At the time I worked for a company that made power train parts for all kinds of different makes and models of cars. specifically, I made what’s known as a “spider”, a type of gear that allows for flexibility at the joint: the part under the protective “boot” if you’ve ever glanced under a car. My job was running the machine that cuts the splines on the spider that makes it fit on the shaft. Even the smallest of spiders have an I.D. (inner diameter) tolerance of plus or minus fifteen microns.
I knew by Melon Head’s comment that he either didn’t know what the fuck a micron was, or just thought it would make him sound smart because nobody else did. This was back when he was at the height of his popularity, before he got involved with the orange Pedo-in-Chief and started throwing Nazi gang signs.
I’m glad that the Cyberdumpster was/is such a failure; those things are ugly as fuck. On the other hand, I hate that the rest of us will have to foot the bill for his fuck-ups.
I’m a bicycle mechanic, not a combustion engine mechanic. But given that fact, I am INTIMATELY familiar with just how suddenly and catastrophically aluminum can fail at even relatively low-speed collisions, and how poorly it tolerates torsion and vibration.
As soon as this pimple-brained wannabe engineer said that the cyberdumpster would have an aluminum frame and a stainless steel body, I backpedaled so fast. I can’t think of a dumber combination of parts for a machine that’s supposed to carry human beings.
Aluminum worked well for the Audi A8 and the A2. That was not the problem. The problem was everything else.
I think this is a lot of people’s experience with Elon, and least until be went full crazy. If you didn’t know anything about the subject he was talking about, he sounded smart. If you did know something about it, you figured out how dumb he was really fast.
He talked about electric cars. I don’t know anything about cars, so when people said he was a genius I figured he must be a genius.
Then he talked about rockets. I don’t know anything about rockets, so when people said he was a genius I figured he must be a genius.
Now he talks about software. I happen to know a lot about software & Elon Musk is saying the stupidest shit I’ve ever heard anyone say, so when people say he’s a genius I figure I should stay the hell away from his cars and rockets.
The first time I ever heard of Musk was in 2007 when he was boosting the hyperloop. I don’t know anything about hyperloops, but I know a lot about trains. Musk was arguing that trains were outdated and the hyperloop was better and cheaper because it was new. I just remember thinking, “how is experimental, untested tech going to be cheaper than off-the-shelf railroad tech? And this guy is supposed to be smart?”
I don’t know if you meant it this way, but that is hilariously similar to the “First They Came” poem.
He’s so insecure about his own intelligence.
Imagine being the richest man alive and your whole existence is being envious of other people’s abilities.
Entirely self inflicted. He’s been wealthy all his life. He could have learned any skill or hobby.
Or just shut the fuck up and not realized the reality of how stupid he really is.
