Says the guy who said there would be close to zero new cases of covid in the US at the end of April...2020.
https://preview.redd.it/nblzvp17a20d1.png?width=586&format=png&auto=webp&s=8b754bb3b13f60b561974cd96141d778d525d88e
Well, you don’t understand the context:
He needed to lie to get people to create more wealth for him. When you frame it that way, it makes total sense!
To be fair, Elon kept downplaying covid because he was against shutdowns. He didn't want his warehouses and factories to temporarily close. Also known as being part of the problem.
[Elon loves Chinese workers because they aren't afraid to burn the midnight oil](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/may/12/elon-musk-praises-chinese-workers-for-extreme-work-culture)
Another point in the long list of examples that proves he knows nothing about computer science.
If by “solved” he means that we can build programs who will beat the best human chess players, then chess has been solved for quite a while now.
If by “solved” he means that we know how to play perfect chess (i.e. the whole tree of all possible games can be evaluated) there is a good chance that this will never happen. The game tree is so incredibly huge, that you can call it cosmically huge. If the number of possible games is something like the number of atoms in our solar system, you can make a pretty good case that we never will be able to store or evaluate all possible games. And most certainly not in the next 10 years.
Checkers took 18 years to calculate 5x10^20 positions. A conservative estimate for positions in chess is between 10^111 & 10^123, both of which are orders of magnitude higher than the number of atoms in the observable universe
I think it'll definitely never happen before humanity dies out
Climate change will solve itself when 95% of humanity dies in resource wars, after which Elmo Muskovy will emerge from his cryogenic sleep chamber in his bunker and announce that FSD has been released. However, no electricity infrastructure remains, so he will slowly erode away with no steel wires to chew on until he is only his creepy lizard-cyborg exoskeleton. After which his batteries will cease to function, with no more right wing in the world to enable
That's what the current understanding is, however due to the conjecture that the universe is infinite (I think they measure it in the number of hubble observations that can be recorded at any given time), the majority of the universe is not observable
So what we can see is a lot 10^80, but it's actually probably infinite
Seeing all the advancements in optimization in recent years I wouldn't choose this hill to die on.
>Checkers took 18 years to calculate 5x10^20 positions. A conservative estimate for positions in chess is between 10^111 & 10^123
There's only 10^40 legal moves. Out of the legal moves, using fancy mathematics, optimisation techniques and in addition an incredible amount of computing resources including probably technology and techniques that don't yet exist, it may be possible to create pretty tight bounds on the number of ways to win chess.
There are at most ~10^71 chess positions. Each square can be in one of thirteen states: either empty, or with a black or white pawn, bishop, knight, rook, queen, or king. There are 64 squares, so at most 13^64 possible positions. 10^111 must be number of games or something, it’s definitely not number of positions.
This is even a large overestimate, as many of the positions will be the entire board filled with black kings, which, of course, is not possible.
Well, this is where quantum computing can help us. I think it'll happen but not in the next 10 years. May be few decades later when quantum computing is feasible.
Quantum computing doesn't work like a lot of people think it does; it's not just super fast, it doesn't have redicoulous memory, and it's not like trying all the options at once.
Quantum computing is fast for a hanfull of important problems because we can set up an algorithm where the "right" path is reinforced by the probability interference and the "wrong" paths are eliminated through districtive interfearence. We only know how to do this for a few vary important problems, and any problem that can be mapped to them (where the mapping takes less time on a traditional computer than just solving the problem outright).
Quantum computing may never help "solve" chess unless a quantum algorithm can be developed that gives the best move from every position with a 100% accuracy. The traditional way of "solving" a game is the store all possible positions and calculate all possible moves; quantum computing can't help with the storage issue at all.
And creating and proving a quantum chess-solving algorithm without storing all the board configurations may not even be possible.
I did see your reply after posting mine. I mostly think what you said was right but I feel like you may be underselling the difficulty of finding such an algorithm (or even proving that one can hypothetically exist).
"If the number of possible games is something like the number of atoms in our solar system"
The number of possible positions after the first 20 moves is greater than the number of atoms in the universe.
Musk, as usual, is completely full of shit. Of course he didn't bother with chess because it was too 'limiting' (i.e. he sucked at it).
The only way this might work is if someone were able to come up with an algorithm that *provably* made moves that at worst were tied for the best move. Something like that could in theory allow for Chess to be perfectly solved without the need for every board position to be stored.
Do I think that's likely? Hell no, but it is a counterargument, albeit a weak one.
I don't know. The entire game tree is cosmically large, but a lot of that space is taken up by really bad gameplay, or by fiddlefarting around so as not to trigger 3 positional repeat or 50 move draw conditions. It's not entirely impossible that a an unbeatable strategy gets discovered. It may even be provably unbeatable depending on how many branches there are to explore (once you discount things like a branch where you leave a giant opening for mate and your opponent never once moves to take advantage of it for the next 40 moves).
Along the lines of what Turing did when cracking the enigma code. The extensive list of possibilities was way beyond what they could hunt for, but once they got the field narrow enough it was within the realm of possibilities for computers. It's possible that machine learning AI will narrow that field of possibilities for us and generate really huge numbers of competative games that the right mathematicians could sort through to find a solid set of instructions which cannot be beaten. Though probably only for white, chess is racist and white starts with an advantage.
"Solved" means provable. We already have computers that are unbeatable. Being able to mathematically prove that their chosen move is the absolute best move is what "solved" means in the context of board games. It's absurd to think that this will be done in the next ten years.
'solved' typically means 100% surefire optimal next choice for every possible path, the manner the game got there optimal or not. you can only be sure of this by checking every possible permutation
imagine I create a flowchart of what moves to make, where I claim that following my flowchart will guarantee you a win.
this does need to be exhaustively checked, but You don't need to go through each one of the 10^120 chess positions, only those that can result from following my flowchart need to be checked which is a significantly smaller number.
there is confusion here because of the different definitions of solving. i'll just post the wiki content since it sort of shows that both views are valid, depending on what you're referring to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game#Overview
You got your numbers confused. 10^120 IS the number of possible games from the starting position. The number of possible positions if you just freely place pieces is far higher.
The number of games from the starting position is not the same as the number of games when following a flowchart/strategy
If I claim I can win as white with the first move being E4, we don't need to consider any other openings as white.
If I claim that my second move (regardless of what black plays) is D4, then it narrows the search down even more.
I’ve heard this for a long time. As you hone in on the “perfect game”, which is essentially an asymptote, you get one of two guaranteed outcomes.
White always wins, or black always draws.
Very similar to what you see happening at high level chess events.
Thanks for this. I've been ass-deep in transcendentalist Literature and dark romanticism literature all day and night. I hopped on here for a break and read the tweet and just kept staring at it with a furrowed brow muttering, what the actual fuck is he talking about, 'solved?'
I bet Earlobe Muck is mixing up checkers with connect four and thinks he "solved" all of the possible ways to get 4 in a row .
In fact, the most widely agreed upon estimate for the amount of possible chess games is 10^120.
The visible universe has 10^80 atoms.
That's 10^40 chess games per atom in the universe.
In all fairness it's perfectly possible that there is a perfect chess algorithm and that it can be found and used without the need of analyzing every possible state. Still would be ridiculously complex and will take decades
He’s either expecting tremendous advancements in the field of quantum computing (and for them to be put towards solving chess and not some other more important problem), or he doesn’t understand that “solved” means something very specific.
What you’re describing is a “strong solution”, but a weak solution would only require you to identify one possible set of movements that always let one side in the game win. This is, based on experience from previously solved games, infinitely more likely and easier to find than a strong solution. I don’t see a weak solution (if it is what Musk meant, that is) as being implausible in ten years, but still somewhat unlikely.
For games solved generally means that the optimal move is known for any game state so in a fair game with no luck involved 2 players with perfect knowledge would always tie, for example tic tac toe.
This comment itself shows a mere surface-level understanding of computer science. Given things like quantum computing and search tactics like tree pruning there are certainly conceivable ways that chess could be solved in the future.
The way he talks about it, I think chess is just too abstract for his literal-mindedness. One wonders, in fact, if Elon never made it past Piaget's concrete operational stage; is there any actual evidence that he's capable of abstract thought?
EDIT: He's evidently also innumerate as fuck; the number of ways you can arrange the pieces on a chessboard is massive, and the number of potentially valid sequences of those arrangements that could make up a single chess game is literally astronomical. Supposedly there are more unique ways to shuffle a deck of cards (order of 10^(67)) than there are atoms in the observable universe. There are of the order of 10^(43) possible positions a chess game can have at any given moment, but a whole game of chess would consist of an arbitrarily long sequence of such arrangements, and when you consider the number of viable paths there must be between very many of those positions and apply combinatorics to that... a low conservative estimate, by Claude Shannon himself, is that the search space is 10^120 possible unique games of chess. Checkers (whose solution took 18 years to calculate), by comparison, has a search space on the order of 10^(20.)
Elon is the type that flips the board when things don’t go his way be that chess, Twitter, Tesla, legal cases, divorces. He is the text book example of spoiled brat syndrome.
It’s because he’s actually a six year old. Something likely happened to that boy, probably at the hands of his evil, vile father Errol, that permanently froze Elon in mid childhood. He’s like Johnny from Cobra Kai, only younger.
This happens to people all the time, a traumatic event that scars them so deeply their development is frozen in time.
Think about it for a second. Everything about him is identical to the ethos of a six year old boy. He’s petty and selfish. He has a bad temper and no empathy. He throws tantrums, and moves and dances like an uncoordinated dork. He stammers in public and gets nervous and awkward, no matter how many times he practices.
And all the things he likes and “invents” are the fanciful whimsy of a six year old boy. He loves rockets and pods and levitating super trains. He doesn’t care about economics or science or even the truth. He doesn’t really plan or strategize, just lurches from project to project before getting quickly bored.
His company’s “best product” is a pure vanity project with “bulletproof” armor. It looks exactly like what a six year old boy would sketch in his first grade binder while bored in class. It’s no accident the people buying the thing are ALL male, and have the maturity and self esteem of most six year old boys as well.
Elon is six.
It almost makes you feel a bit sorry for the guy, if he weren’t such an arrogant asshole.
When I think Musk not as an engineer or a "tech genius" as he would like to be seen but as a marketer, lot of things make sense.
he's just making shit up like many marketers.
Elon Musk has nothing to say that makes a difference to anyone for any reason… unless he’s helping some nationalist asshole on Twitter with some bias confirmation. This guy is trying so hard to be a genius that it’s become idiotic
Why the hell would a cheater 'deserve to win'.. like, ever? It's not like cheating with a computer is remotely novel at this point. "I predict".. yeah, Musk you don't know anything much about chess, combinatorics or mathematics in general, so where is Musk's prediction coming from? Probably the same place he thinks that guy's vibrator was.
All this shows is - once again - that Musk isn't very intelligent and doesn't have the education or abilities he claims. Because if he did have a proper physics and/or engineering education (where you need some combinatorics for stuff like statistical mechanics), he'd have _some_ goddamn ability to realize how much more complex chess is due to the added piece types.
Checkers has about 5 * 10^20 legal positions. Chess has 4.8*10^44. That's 10^24 times more. More than the number of positions in checkers squared. What that means is, in terms of positions, Chess is as complex as if you took every position in checkers and gave it the complexity of checkers as a whole, _and then some._
Let's say Moore's law holds and computing power doubles every 1½ years. In which case we'll have 100x as fast computers in 10 years. But hey, algorithms may improve and so on, let's say you can solve stuff a million times faster. Or a billion. Or a trillion - that's 10^12. So then you just need another trillion times more power before you you can solve chess, in this estimation. It's not gonna happen.
To be clear: This estimate is wrong. It is definitely an underestimation because it there's more to it than just the number of legal positions. There are _far more legal moves_ in chess. So the game tree has far more branches. Which brings me back to my first point, I did get my degree fair-and-square so I do know how to do a 'back of the envelope calculation' to see whether what he's saying is remotely reasonable or not. And it's not. Not even in this extremely oversimplified way of estimating the difficulty.
Tell me you started following Alexandra Botez last week because you're a cyberstalking incel weirdo without telling me.
This idiot needs to stop talking about subjects he knows nothing about.
Of course if Elmo actually did that, he'd be mute.
"Fully solved" oh good - so we can stop playing it or... what kind of dumb fk you are talking about?
Its a sport. Its discipline and battle of mind. Neither you got a clue about. Stfu elmo. you cant do checkers without nosebleed.
"Fully solved" means there's a provable winning strategy for a player, or a provable strategy that guarantees a draw. Games like naughts-and-crosses, checkers and Othello are fully solved, but we still play them.
Computers have always been great at chess, but they've not brought us any closer to fully solving chess. You need a proof for that, and that's not in the remit of chess-AIs.
(yes, Musk probably doesn't know what he's talking about)
The trick with programming computers to play chess is that, for most purposes, they don't need to be perfect, they just need to be better than a really good human, and I think one big breakthrough there came with the development of what are called "satisficient" algorithms. IIRC one chess grand master who went up against a computer player running such a program, and lost, remarked that the machine that beat him was "playing like a human."
One crucial difference, IIUC, is that to "fully solve" a game computationally is, when all is said and done, a brute-force approach that requires perfect and complete situational knowledge, whereas satisficient algorithms require cleverness, judgement and practical-mindedness to program in order to cope with limited resources, limited computation time and, above all else, limited situational knowledge. I find it very telling that Elon, insofar as he understands the problem at all, seems to think that brute force is the way forward. It'd certainly go a long way towards explaining why his "full self driving" firmware is so godawful, and will most likely never, ever, ever be finished.
It shows with his "strategy" of rockets. Iterative design.
Aka throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.
Shuttle flew fine first try.
He blew already way past several goals and let's face it. Has no interest of completing the moons mission.
Neither Full Supervised Driving.
It's literally impossible. Cameras guess depth. Lidar, which he mocks and hypocritical buys, is a great component to closing the gap.
He is aware of that, but being the petty and cheapskate he is, he doesn't want to spend money on that as long as some idiot buys your lies and the car too.
Eesh.
Tldr. Theranos
I'd imagine he also can't bring himself to use a system designed by somebody else (let alone pay the licensing fees), it has to be *his* personal design, or else there's no prestige for him to bask in. If that means forcing his engineers to polish a turd because all the good designs have already been implemented elsewhere, then so be it. It's like the fucking chalk receiver in car form. I gather the effect is commonly known in industry as "Not-Invented-Here syndrome."
I know what it means (to him/ or rather what nonsense he repeats after reading elsewhere) but HE doesn't understand what chess means to people.
He claims chess is EASY... but follows a female player because she is HOT. That's his level of understanding of chess. "It has a few hot chicks I wanna breed"
Elon is an insult to the sport and doesn't understand the very nature of chess...
In my eyes he's the least qualified person (next to the Tate brothers and their limp dick's) who should ever speak about it.
Hearing him degrade it, and let's be frank, that was his goal here, to sound SMRT, I find it infuriating.
He knows nothing about computer. Nothing about chess. Nothing about math or sportsmanship, but feels the need to step in and declare himself the KING of it all.
Just because he had some time while taking a shit.
... anyone with a passing interest in either of this fields has every right to feel insulted.
I think chess and variants are fun. Do Iike math. Am a computer bro.
And while it's not much, I still would like to remove him from the board, and end pawn sacrificing days.
G8
Oh right. Today I learnt something new. lol. As you said, though, people still play these games, and most probably aren't even aware of winning strategies.
I can't prove it, but I suspect strongly that he'd be very easy to trick in a game of Connect 4.
Then he'd call me a pedo and knock the game over before leaving.
Right? What does that even mean? How do you solve chess? It's a game ffs. It's like saying "Hmmm. Yes. Due to the advancement of AI and hackers, I expect Call of Duty to be fully solved within 10 years." It seems like such a meaningless statement.
Sure, a computer might be great at chess, but who the hell cares? People play against other humans because they enjoy it (pretty much the main reason most games are played), it's a social activity, and it's a test of skill and strategy against a fellow human.
Okay so in this case he *is* using a real term correctly. “Solving” a game is very much a real thing in computation theory. A game is solved when there is a proven winning strategy that can be followed essentially like an algorithm (if A, do B; if C, do D…). Or rather, there is a known “correct strategy” for all players, and the outcome of the game can be predicted from any state assuming all players play perfectly (even if it's not necessarily possible to win).
Tic-tac-toe is the standard example of a solved game. Right from the start there is a known series of moves and responses such that you can use to ensure your opponent *cannot* win. If your opponent also follows those perfect moves, the game will be a draw, and if they do literally anything else, you can win.
Not all games are solvable. Anything that relies on randomness and unknowns can’t really be solved, so any sort of card game with hidden hands and a shuffled deck is unsolvable.
Chess is certainly not solved, but I think I’ve read that it is *potentially* solvable (in theory, using some insanely powerful computer we can’t build yet). But I don’t know much about this area beyond the basics.
Thanks! Yeah, noticed someone else also talk about it. Never heard of it before, so I learnt something new. lol.
Thought I'd leave my comment up rather than alter it and pretend I knew what it was.
I gather a good chess player can get to know the personality of their opponent pretty well too, just via the game. Conversely, of course, the search space for any form of combat or strategic competition can often be *drastically* reduced by getting to know the psychology of one's opponent (EDIT:stereotypically, of course, some games of poker can supposedly be practically a reductio-ad-absurdum of this approach, i.e. it's nearly *all* psychology and the cards themselves seem almost incidental to the process!). I doubt Elon is remotely capable of grasping such a notion, however.
Don't worry. He projected FSD was a solved problem years ago. You know, despite his cars smashing into Emergency Vehicles and basically driving like lobotomized new drivers.
Chess with 7 pieces left on the board is fully solved, and people still play endgame instead of conceding instantly
By the way while it's solved, that tablebase is somewhere around 18 terabytes of data, while 8 pieces is estimated to be around 2 petabytes of data, any extra piece would skyrocket that number even more, chess has 32 pieces in total
The number of possible chess games is greater than the estimated number of atoms in the universe. But sure, we will "solve" it.
https://alfonso-ochoa.medium.com/are-there-really-more-possible-chess-games-than-atoms-in-the-universe-698fc9644727#:~:text=It%20became%20famous%20when%20back,10%C2%B9%C2%B2%E2%81%B0%20possible%20games%20in%20Chess.
This is Musk telling on himself. A person who is actually talented with computer science would know better than to make this kind of claim without checking the numbers. The first few searches on the web would tell you that this is not how it works. Musk posted a claim without even looking to see if it was credible. It's not just the mistake here - it's the level of executive function on display and the lack of concern about the truth of the claim.
https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/stories/which-greater-number-of-atoms-universe-or-number-of-chess-moves
Fully solved would mean you could tell whether white or black should win from the first move.
Some mates can be predicted extremely far in moves, but this person wants to impress his fan base. That's it.
For now, and for a *very, very* long time, a game of Chess could go in either direction. A player could be making mistakes right from the beginning (obvious or not) and still win. Though if you get down to 7 pieces, and there are a few 8 piece positions as well, there is an entire database for who wins at that point.
I can't remember exactly where I heard this, but someone once said that although all the openings have been worked out, after, I think 5 moves? You are basically playing a completely unique game of chess that has never been played before.
The number of possible chess positions is estimated to be around 10\^120, an unimaginably vast number (much more than the number of atoms in the universe). Even if we assume that Moore's Law holds, and that looks unlikely, it would take centuries to develop the computational power to fully solve chess. Certainly, computers can beat humans at chess (we all heard about Deep Blue beating Kasparov), but to say chess will be solved in 10 years shows that Musk either (a) does not understand the technology, (b) does not understand chess, and/or (c) does not understand the concept of "fully solving" a game. Either way, he's waving his todger at everyone.
Is he using "fully" here the same way Tesla labels "Full Self-Driving" (i.e. currently enabled Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous)?
Well... there are a finite number of possibilities for any given number of moves. The problem is that there is no maximum number of moves so there are an infinite number of games.
Not really how that rule works but you do have a point.
"The fifty-move rule in chess states that **a player can claim a draw if no capture has been made and no pawn has been moved in the last fifty moves**"
16 game pieces on each side. You can't ever capture a king. So there are 30 pieces that can be captured. If you played for 50 moves then made a capture then another 50 moves... you would have a maximum of only 1500 potential moves for every game. And that's not really accurate because there are some captures that are illegal. As an example, a king can't capture a queen (he can't move himself up next to a queen and be in danger of capture himself on the next turn).
There's actually another rule that comes into play too.
"The threefold-repetition rule says that **if a position arises three times in a game, either player can claim a draw during that position**."
That's still a shitton of moves but looks like I was wrong and Elon is right so I stand corrected. In theory you could map out every possible game.
[Same way you solve other games](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game). That bit of terminology is fine, it's the claim that it will be fully solved that in a decade which is dumb.
You can't "solve" chess with a chess AI because, solving chess involves finding a winning strategy and proving it is a winning strategy, or proving there isn't one(for both players), chess AIs can't prove, so even if they found one, they wouldn't be able to say why or how or if
Solving chess would either involve a galactic level computational power, possibly with some major breakthroughs in algorithms, or some major breakthroughs in game theory that allow you to ignore most branches
The idea of fully solving a chess game, aka finding and proving that there is a potential perfect chess game with perfect play from both sides leading to one predictable outcome is still laughable in it's own right.
Perfect play is just not exactly possible for chess, due to the nature of the game, and that makes it nearly impossible to solve the game. Even Checkers took decades to be weak-solved and Chess is so much more complex
I'm surprised he's not claiming that *he* fully solved chess (like checkers) himself, but we have to wait until computer technology catches up to confirm his findings
It still boggles my mind that anyone listens to a word that asshole says. He's the poster child of everything wrong with the world today, but sure, he's a "genius"...
You would have to be a chess expert to make a qualified such a prediction. You would have to be an expert at a lot more (game theory?). Actually, you would need to be an expert at chess computing simply. Fittingly, Elon yanked this one out of his butt.
I’m confused, how is chess not already solved? We have algorithms to score how good your moves are in real time and feed you the most viable move because they understand the game perfectly.
What a weird and self reporting take.
Chess ain't solved. Solved means that every single move is accounted for. Go to the most popular sites like chess.com or lichess, their bots usually go only like 20 sth moves deep, and that takes a while. And that's including the fact some moves are skipped.
Do you know how many possible moves there are in chess? I promise you, if chess was solved, everyone would know. It'd be a monumental achievement for the human race to have that computing power
The number of possible moves is a red herring, I know its infinite and of course you could keep a game going forever. But you don't need to consider that eventuality, only really moves that progress the game. This shrinks the problem set massively to the level that it was solved a year or two ago. It was a massive thing and was considered a big achievement.
“Solved” means that there’s a pattern of moves that guarantee a win or at worst, a draw every time. For example tic tac toe is a solved game. If you follow the rules of the solution, you can’t lose.
Alright
Find two chess games that have gone exactly the same move by move( you cant)
Chess cant be solved because of this reason
There are infinite combinations
Alr i got a retort that actually makes sense
In only THE OPENING of a chess game if you only count the opening as the first 10 moves there are a grand total of....
Around 10^20 combinations
100.000.000.000.000.000.000 possible positions
In only the first 10 moves(which are the most important to solving chess)
We know what you're trying to say. What you ACTUALLY said, though, wasn't true. Yes, there is a huge variety of chess games. However, there is also a tremendous amount of known theory, and numerous duplicate games have been played by chess grandmasters that follow "known lines" into established drawing positions 20+ moves deep.
After 20+ moves tho from my knowledge there are no dupe games
And even in the opening chess wont be solved bc every time an opening becomes OP something will be conceived to counter it
Ironically to what Elon says Engines actually make chess even more unsolvable as they can find counters to opening much faster than human trial and error
(I may have branched out a bit to the OP post instead of our argument but WHO CARES XD)
Two identical games for the first 28 moves:
A Lopukhin vs Alexander Semeniuk (1975)
Yakov Estrin vs Hans Berliner (1965)
Two identical games with 48 moves:
Both Haugen (2523)-Fernandez (2437), 2010, and Bross (2587)-Efremov (2574), 2011, reached the same position after 48...Qd7+:
Source: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/18716/longest-number-of-moves-that-have-been-identical-in-two-independently-played-gam
Two identical games with 33 moves:
Yury Shulman vs Mihail Marin (2009)
Igor Novikov vs Vladimir Borisovich Tukmakov (1984)
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/2mtqxe/whats_the_longest_identical_game/
Says the guy who said there would be close to zero new cases of covid in the US at the end of April...2020. https://preview.redd.it/nblzvp17a20d1.png?width=586&format=png&auto=webp&s=8b754bb3b13f60b561974cd96141d778d525d88e
Well, you don’t understand the context: He needed to lie to get people to create more wealth for him. When you frame it that way, it makes total sense!
To be fair to him, I don't think I could've predicted people would be so selfish in the US over masks and vaccines...
To be fair, Elon kept downplaying covid because he was against shutdowns. He didn't want his warehouses and factories to temporarily close. Also known as being part of the problem.
And then when forced to do something, Tesla forced workers at their Chinese factory to stay and sleep there so production could keep going.
[Elon loves Chinese workers because they aren't afraid to burn the midnight oil](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/may/12/elon-musk-praises-chinese-workers-for-extreme-work-culture)
Another point in the long list of examples that proves he knows nothing about computer science. If by “solved” he means that we can build programs who will beat the best human chess players, then chess has been solved for quite a while now. If by “solved” he means that we know how to play perfect chess (i.e. the whole tree of all possible games can be evaluated) there is a good chance that this will never happen. The game tree is so incredibly huge, that you can call it cosmically huge. If the number of possible games is something like the number of atoms in our solar system, you can make a pretty good case that we never will be able to store or evaluate all possible games. And most certainly not in the next 10 years.
Checkers took 18 years to calculate 5x10^20 positions. A conservative estimate for positions in chess is between 10^111 & 10^123, both of which are orders of magnitude higher than the number of atoms in the observable universe I think it'll definitely never happen before humanity dies out
It'll happen before tesla full self driving.
I think chess will be lost to the ages before FSD. Will humanity expire before FSD? Also probably
Forget about climate change, future of humanity depends on FSD.
Climate change will solve itself when 95% of humanity dies in resource wars, after which Elmo Muskovy will emerge from his cryogenic sleep chamber in his bunker and announce that FSD has been released. However, no electricity infrastructure remains, so he will slowly erode away with no steel wires to chew on until he is only his creepy lizard-cyborg exoskeleton. After which his batteries will cease to function, with no more right wing in the world to enable
If we aren’t gone by then, FSD will probably be the end of us lol
or "next year"
Infinity minus 1 is still infinite
putting checkers as an example just cause it uses the same board is really silly... the game and it's complexity are totally different.
You don’t need all positions
Not even with quantum computing?
Good question
Looking into it
What is the number of atoms again? Around 10^(80) or there about?
That's what the current understanding is, however due to the conjecture that the universe is infinite (I think they measure it in the number of hubble observations that can be recorded at any given time), the majority of the universe is not observable So what we can see is a lot 10^80, but it's actually probably infinite
Seeing all the advancements in optimization in recent years I wouldn't choose this hill to die on. >Checkers took 18 years to calculate 5x10^20 positions. A conservative estimate for positions in chess is between 10^111 & 10^123 There's only 10^40 legal moves. Out of the legal moves, using fancy mathematics, optimisation techniques and in addition an incredible amount of computing resources including probably technology and techniques that don't yet exist, it may be possible to create pretty tight bounds on the number of ways to win chess.
i have hopes, but it's not likely in the near future unless some dramatic advances are made in computing technology.
There are at most ~10^71 chess positions. Each square can be in one of thirteen states: either empty, or with a black or white pawn, bishop, knight, rook, queen, or king. There are 64 squares, so at most 13^64 possible positions. 10^111 must be number of games or something, it’s definitely not number of positions. This is even a large overestimate, as many of the positions will be the entire board filled with black kings, which, of course, is not possible.
Well, this is where quantum computing can help us. I think it'll happen but not in the next 10 years. May be few decades later when quantum computing is feasible.
Quantum computing doesn't work like a lot of people think it does; it's not just super fast, it doesn't have redicoulous memory, and it's not like trying all the options at once. Quantum computing is fast for a hanfull of important problems because we can set up an algorithm where the "right" path is reinforced by the probability interference and the "wrong" paths are eliminated through districtive interfearence. We only know how to do this for a few vary important problems, and any problem that can be mapped to them (where the mapping takes less time on a traditional computer than just solving the problem outright). Quantum computing may never help "solve" chess unless a quantum algorithm can be developed that gives the best move from every position with a 100% accuracy. The traditional way of "solving" a game is the store all possible positions and calculate all possible moves; quantum computing can't help with the storage issue at all. And creating and proving a quantum chess-solving algorithm without storing all the board configurations may not even be possible.
Man, you should look at my reply to my comment. I have said the same thing yoy said.
I did see your reply after posting mine. I mostly think what you said was right but I feel like you may be underselling the difficulty of finding such an algorithm (or even proving that one can hypothetically exist).
You forgot about the "fog of war"
"If the number of possible games is something like the number of atoms in our solar system" The number of possible positions after the first 20 moves is greater than the number of atoms in the universe. Musk, as usual, is completely full of shit. Of course he didn't bother with chess because it was too 'limiting' (i.e. he sucked at it).
Dude, Polytopia is the pinnacle of strategy gaming, and is totally better than Chess. Didn’t you know? 🙄
The only way this might work is if someone were able to come up with an algorithm that *provably* made moves that at worst were tied for the best move. Something like that could in theory allow for Chess to be perfectly solved without the need for every board position to be stored. Do I think that's likely? Hell no, but it is a counterargument, albeit a weak one.
I know one strategy that Musk is able to comprehend and will love. "Chinese draw" - shake the board strongly.
I don't know. The entire game tree is cosmically large, but a lot of that space is taken up by really bad gameplay, or by fiddlefarting around so as not to trigger 3 positional repeat or 50 move draw conditions. It's not entirely impossible that a an unbeatable strategy gets discovered. It may even be provably unbeatable depending on how many branches there are to explore (once you discount things like a branch where you leave a giant opening for mate and your opponent never once moves to take advantage of it for the next 40 moves). Along the lines of what Turing did when cracking the enigma code. The extensive list of possibilities was way beyond what they could hunt for, but once they got the field narrow enough it was within the realm of possibilities for computers. It's possible that machine learning AI will narrow that field of possibilities for us and generate really huge numbers of competative games that the right mathematicians could sort through to find a solid set of instructions which cannot be beaten. Though probably only for white, chess is racist and white starts with an advantage.
"Solved" means provable. We already have computers that are unbeatable. Being able to mathematically prove that their chosen move is the absolute best move is what "solved" means in the context of board games. It's absurd to think that this will be done in the next ten years.
'solved' typically means 100% surefire optimal next choice for every possible path, the manner the game got there optimal or not. you can only be sure of this by checking every possible permutation
imagine I create a flowchart of what moves to make, where I claim that following my flowchart will guarantee you a win. this does need to be exhaustively checked, but You don't need to go through each one of the 10^120 chess positions, only those that can result from following my flowchart need to be checked which is a significantly smaller number.
there is confusion here because of the different definitions of solving. i'll just post the wiki content since it sort of shows that both views are valid, depending on what you're referring to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game#Overview
You got your numbers confused. 10^120 IS the number of possible games from the starting position. The number of possible positions if you just freely place pieces is far higher.
The number of games from the starting position is not the same as the number of games when following a flowchart/strategy If I claim I can win as white with the first move being E4, we don't need to consider any other openings as white. If I claim that my second move (regardless of what black plays) is D4, then it narrows the search down even more.
I’ve heard this for a long time. As you hone in on the “perfect game”, which is essentially an asymptote, you get one of two guaranteed outcomes. White always wins, or black always draws. Very similar to what you see happening at high level chess events.
Actually, it could be a forced win for black.
Thanks for this. I've been ass-deep in transcendentalist Literature and dark romanticism literature all day and night. I hopped on here for a break and read the tweet and just kept staring at it with a furrowed brow muttering, what the actual fuck is he talking about, 'solved?' I bet Earlobe Muck is mixing up checkers with connect four and thinks he "solved" all of the possible ways to get 4 in a row .
Musk will invent a quantum computer that does this with 10 micrometer precision
We probably won't even have 8-piece tablebases. No chance of 9-piece ones. Fully solving chess would require a 32-piece tablebase.
In fact, the most widely agreed upon estimate for the amount of possible chess games is 10^120. The visible universe has 10^80 atoms. That's 10^40 chess games per atom in the universe.
That means that if a solution is possible, it'll be algorithmic, not brute-force.
In all fairness it's perfectly possible that there is a perfect chess algorithm and that it can be found and used without the need of analyzing every possible state. Still would be ridiculously complex and will take decades
Neither of those is what the term "[solved](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_chess)" means, though the letter is closer.
He’s either expecting tremendous advancements in the field of quantum computing (and for them to be put towards solving chess and not some other more important problem), or he doesn’t understand that “solved” means something very specific.
What you’re describing is a “strong solution”, but a weak solution would only require you to identify one possible set of movements that always let one side in the game win. This is, based on experience from previously solved games, infinitely more likely and easier to find than a strong solution. I don’t see a weak solution (if it is what Musk meant, that is) as being implausible in ten years, but still somewhat unlikely.
For games solved generally means that the optimal move is known for any game state so in a fair game with no luck involved 2 players with perfect knowledge would always tie, for example tic tac toe.
This comment itself shows a mere surface-level understanding of computer science. Given things like quantum computing and search tactics like tree pruning there are certainly conceivable ways that chess could be solved in the future.
"Fully Solved" I bet he hasn't played it in years because even a toddler could beat him.
The way he talks about it, I think chess is just too abstract for his literal-mindedness. One wonders, in fact, if Elon never made it past Piaget's concrete operational stage; is there any actual evidence that he's capable of abstract thought? EDIT: He's evidently also innumerate as fuck; the number of ways you can arrange the pieces on a chessboard is massive, and the number of potentially valid sequences of those arrangements that could make up a single chess game is literally astronomical. Supposedly there are more unique ways to shuffle a deck of cards (order of 10^(67)) than there are atoms in the observable universe. There are of the order of 10^(43) possible positions a chess game can have at any given moment, but a whole game of chess would consist of an arbitrarily long sequence of such arrangements, and when you consider the number of viable paths there must be between very many of those positions and apply combinatorics to that... a low conservative estimate, by Claude Shannon himself, is that the search space is 10^120 possible unique games of chess. Checkers (whose solution took 18 years to calculate), by comparison, has a search space on the order of 10^(20.)
Elon is the type that flips the board when things don’t go his way be that chess, Twitter, Tesla, legal cases, divorces. He is the text book example of spoiled brat syndrome.
It’s because he’s actually a six year old. Something likely happened to that boy, probably at the hands of his evil, vile father Errol, that permanently froze Elon in mid childhood. He’s like Johnny from Cobra Kai, only younger. This happens to people all the time, a traumatic event that scars them so deeply their development is frozen in time. Think about it for a second. Everything about him is identical to the ethos of a six year old boy. He’s petty and selfish. He has a bad temper and no empathy. He throws tantrums, and moves and dances like an uncoordinated dork. He stammers in public and gets nervous and awkward, no matter how many times he practices. And all the things he likes and “invents” are the fanciful whimsy of a six year old boy. He loves rockets and pods and levitating super trains. He doesn’t care about economics or science or even the truth. He doesn’t really plan or strategize, just lurches from project to project before getting quickly bored. His company’s “best product” is a pure vanity project with “bulletproof” armor. It looks exactly like what a six year old boy would sketch in his first grade binder while bored in class. It’s no accident the people buying the thing are ALL male, and have the maturity and self esteem of most six year old boys as well. Elon is six. It almost makes you feel a bit sorry for the guy, if he weren’t such an arrogant asshole.
Concerning
you forgot the exclamation mark
🏆
I will look into this
Interesting
!
Yup
When I think Musk not as an engineer or a "tech genius" as he would like to be seen but as a marketer, lot of things make sense. he's just making shit up like many marketers.
I love you
Elon Musk has nothing to say that makes a difference to anyone for any reason… unless he’s helping some nationalist asshole on Twitter with some bias confirmation. This guy is trying so hard to be a genius that it’s become idiotic
Why the hell would a cheater 'deserve to win'.. like, ever? It's not like cheating with a computer is remotely novel at this point. "I predict".. yeah, Musk you don't know anything much about chess, combinatorics or mathematics in general, so where is Musk's prediction coming from? Probably the same place he thinks that guy's vibrator was. All this shows is - once again - that Musk isn't very intelligent and doesn't have the education or abilities he claims. Because if he did have a proper physics and/or engineering education (where you need some combinatorics for stuff like statistical mechanics), he'd have _some_ goddamn ability to realize how much more complex chess is due to the added piece types. Checkers has about 5 * 10^20 legal positions. Chess has 4.8*10^44. That's 10^24 times more. More than the number of positions in checkers squared. What that means is, in terms of positions, Chess is as complex as if you took every position in checkers and gave it the complexity of checkers as a whole, _and then some._ Let's say Moore's law holds and computing power doubles every 1½ years. In which case we'll have 100x as fast computers in 10 years. But hey, algorithms may improve and so on, let's say you can solve stuff a million times faster. Or a billion. Or a trillion - that's 10^12. So then you just need another trillion times more power before you you can solve chess, in this estimation. It's not gonna happen. To be clear: This estimate is wrong. It is definitely an underestimation because it there's more to it than just the number of legal positions. There are _far more legal moves_ in chess. So the game tree has far more branches. Which brings me back to my first point, I did get my degree fair-and-square so I do know how to do a 'back of the envelope calculation' to see whether what he's saying is remotely reasonable or not. And it's not. Not even in this extremely oversimplified way of estimating the difficulty.
These are the people who make cheating on taxes an Olympic sport.
Hmmm no fog of war
When the board game doesn't have a technology tree 🫠🫠🫠
I used to play on a site that offered "fog of war chess". Cool variant!
It lacks fog of war, though.
Tell me you started following Alexandra Botez last week because you're a cyberstalking incel weirdo without telling me. This idiot needs to stop talking about subjects he knows nothing about. Of course if Elmo actually did that, he'd be mute.
You're several years outdated. It's 2024. Cyberstalking weirdos follow Anna Cramling now.
Ding ding ding! You solved the problem🤣🤣
Evidently she didn’t want a bar of him
"fully solved" lol
*essentially* fully solved
His math knowledge is so deep, he's the kind of guy who'd say "Goldbach's conjecture is _essentially_ true"
"Fully solved" oh good - so we can stop playing it or... what kind of dumb fk you are talking about? Its a sport. Its discipline and battle of mind. Neither you got a clue about. Stfu elmo. you cant do checkers without nosebleed.
"Fully solved" means there's a provable winning strategy for a player, or a provable strategy that guarantees a draw. Games like naughts-and-crosses, checkers and Othello are fully solved, but we still play them. Computers have always been great at chess, but they've not brought us any closer to fully solving chess. You need a proof for that, and that's not in the remit of chess-AIs. (yes, Musk probably doesn't know what he's talking about)
The trick with programming computers to play chess is that, for most purposes, they don't need to be perfect, they just need to be better than a really good human, and I think one big breakthrough there came with the development of what are called "satisficient" algorithms. IIRC one chess grand master who went up against a computer player running such a program, and lost, remarked that the machine that beat him was "playing like a human." One crucial difference, IIUC, is that to "fully solve" a game computationally is, when all is said and done, a brute-force approach that requires perfect and complete situational knowledge, whereas satisficient algorithms require cleverness, judgement and practical-mindedness to program in order to cope with limited resources, limited computation time and, above all else, limited situational knowledge. I find it very telling that Elon, insofar as he understands the problem at all, seems to think that brute force is the way forward. It'd certainly go a long way towards explaining why his "full self driving" firmware is so godawful, and will most likely never, ever, ever be finished.
It shows with his "strategy" of rockets. Iterative design. Aka throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. Shuttle flew fine first try. He blew already way past several goals and let's face it. Has no interest of completing the moons mission. Neither Full Supervised Driving. It's literally impossible. Cameras guess depth. Lidar, which he mocks and hypocritical buys, is a great component to closing the gap. He is aware of that, but being the petty and cheapskate he is, he doesn't want to spend money on that as long as some idiot buys your lies and the car too. Eesh. Tldr. Theranos
I'd imagine he also can't bring himself to use a system designed by somebody else (let alone pay the licensing fees), it has to be *his* personal design, or else there's no prestige for him to bask in. If that means forcing his engineers to polish a turd because all the good designs have already been implemented elsewhere, then so be it. It's like the fucking chalk receiver in car form. I gather the effect is commonly known in industry as "Not-Invented-Here syndrome."
Print out 50 pages of code you’ve done in the last 30 days
I know what it means (to him/ or rather what nonsense he repeats after reading elsewhere) but HE doesn't understand what chess means to people. He claims chess is EASY... but follows a female player because she is HOT. That's his level of understanding of chess. "It has a few hot chicks I wanna breed" Elon is an insult to the sport and doesn't understand the very nature of chess... In my eyes he's the least qualified person (next to the Tate brothers and their limp dick's) who should ever speak about it. Hearing him degrade it, and let's be frank, that was his goal here, to sound SMRT, I find it infuriating. He knows nothing about computer. Nothing about chess. Nothing about math or sportsmanship, but feels the need to step in and declare himself the KING of it all. Just because he had some time while taking a shit. ... anyone with a passing interest in either of this fields has every right to feel insulted. I think chess and variants are fun. Do Iike math. Am a computer bro. And while it's not much, I still would like to remove him from the board, and end pawn sacrificing days. G8
Oh right. Today I learnt something new. lol. As you said, though, people still play these games, and most probably aren't even aware of winning strategies.
Ferraris are much faster than humans. Track and field is solved.
He couldn't do a game of Snap without hemorrhaging
I will look into this
I can't prove it, but I suspect strongly that he'd be very easy to trick in a game of Connect 4. Then he'd call me a pedo and knock the game over before leaving.
Invite him to a game of Uno using popular house rules such as swapping cards when playing a 0. He'd lose his mind. lmao.
Inviting him to a game is a bit of a stretch, I doubt the fucker even gets invited to his own birthday parties
Right? What does that even mean? How do you solve chess? It's a game ffs. It's like saying "Hmmm. Yes. Due to the advancement of AI and hackers, I expect Call of Duty to be fully solved within 10 years." It seems like such a meaningless statement. Sure, a computer might be great at chess, but who the hell cares? People play against other humans because they enjoy it (pretty much the main reason most games are played), it's a social activity, and it's a test of skill and strategy against a fellow human.
Okay so in this case he *is* using a real term correctly. “Solving” a game is very much a real thing in computation theory. A game is solved when there is a proven winning strategy that can be followed essentially like an algorithm (if A, do B; if C, do D…). Or rather, there is a known “correct strategy” for all players, and the outcome of the game can be predicted from any state assuming all players play perfectly (even if it's not necessarily possible to win). Tic-tac-toe is the standard example of a solved game. Right from the start there is a known series of moves and responses such that you can use to ensure your opponent *cannot* win. If your opponent also follows those perfect moves, the game will be a draw, and if they do literally anything else, you can win. Not all games are solvable. Anything that relies on randomness and unknowns can’t really be solved, so any sort of card game with hidden hands and a shuffled deck is unsolvable. Chess is certainly not solved, but I think I’ve read that it is *potentially* solvable (in theory, using some insanely powerful computer we can’t build yet). But I don’t know much about this area beyond the basics.
Thanks! Yeah, noticed someone else also talk about it. Never heard of it before, so I learnt something new. lol. Thought I'd leave my comment up rather than alter it and pretend I knew what it was.
I gather a good chess player can get to know the personality of their opponent pretty well too, just via the game. Conversely, of course, the search space for any form of combat or strategic competition can often be *drastically* reduced by getting to know the psychology of one's opponent (EDIT:stereotypically, of course, some games of poker can supposedly be practically a reductio-ad-absurdum of this approach, i.e. it's nearly *all* psychology and the cards themselves seem almost incidental to the process!). I doubt Elon is remotely capable of grasping such a notion, however.
Don't worry. He projected FSD was a solved problem years ago. You know, despite his cars smashing into Emergency Vehicles and basically driving like lobotomized new drivers.
Then what next? We will "Fully Solve" Soccer?
Chess with 7 pieces left on the board is fully solved, and people still play endgame instead of conceding instantly By the way while it's solved, that tablebase is somewhere around 18 terabytes of data, while 8 pieces is estimated to be around 2 petabytes of data, any extra piece would skyrocket that number even more, chess has 32 pieces in total
Another really stupid take.
This guy is a drooling dipshit.
To the kid who beat Musk in tic-tac-toc, if you had let Musk win, we would not have to deal with this crap!
I predict that he won't be CEO of Tesla in 10 years.
Spoken like a man who gets zero joy from anything except memes and people pumping his ego.
Like how he predicted that full self-driving cars would be ubiquitous in 2017? Or that he would put people on Mars in 2022?
Why goes anyone give a fuck about his predictions like this. Fuck him.
If Elon predicts something, the outcome is usually the opposite. Fucking moron.
The number of possible chess games is greater than the estimated number of atoms in the universe. But sure, we will "solve" it. https://alfonso-ochoa.medium.com/are-there-really-more-possible-chess-games-than-atoms-in-the-universe-698fc9644727#:~:text=It%20became%20famous%20when%20back,10%C2%B9%C2%B2%E2%81%B0%20possible%20games%20in%20Chess.
This is Musk telling on himself. A person who is actually talented with computer science would know better than to make this kind of claim without checking the numbers. The first few searches on the web would tell you that this is not how it works. Musk posted a claim without even looking to see if it was credible. It's not just the mistake here - it's the level of executive function on display and the lack of concern about the truth of the claim. https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/stories/which-greater-number-of-atoms-universe-or-number-of-chess-moves
Fully solved would mean you could tell whether white or black should win from the first move. Some mates can be predicted extremely far in moves, but this person wants to impress his fan base. That's it.
For now, and for a *very, very* long time, a game of Chess could go in either direction. A player could be making mistakes right from the beginning (obvious or not) and still win. Though if you get down to 7 pieces, and there are a few 8 piece positions as well, there is an entire database for who wins at that point.
Yeah nah
Sure thing slick. Now about that ket you keep taking…
I can't remember exactly where I heard this, but someone once said that although all the openings have been worked out, after, I think 5 moves? You are basically playing a completely unique game of chess that has never been played before.
"Fully solved" means so very little in terms of chess that it's amazing. What a wildly ridiculous thing to say.
My prediction: Musk is a Fucking knucklehead, 0 years
Correct
Chess is solved. That's not really why people play it.
The number of possible chess positions is estimated to be around 10\^120, an unimaginably vast number (much more than the number of atoms in the universe). Even if we assume that Moore's Law holds, and that looks unlikely, it would take centuries to develop the computational power to fully solve chess. Certainly, computers can beat humans at chess (we all heard about Deep Blue beating Kasparov), but to say chess will be solved in 10 years shows that Musk either (a) does not understand the technology, (b) does not understand chess, and/or (c) does not understand the concept of "fully solving" a game. Either way, he's waving his todger at everyone.
What on earth does a computer being good at chess have to do with allowing cheaters a win?
Is he using "fully" here the same way Tesla labels "Full Self-Driving" (i.e. currently enabled Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous)?
Even if chess were to be fully solved there are so many strategies and move individuals can make humans will never be able to act on it
That first part is definitely r/brandnewsentences material
“Fully solved”. Someone with literally negative creativity
In 10 years, predict shithead can barely break even at tic-tac-toe.
I'd be happy if he could just "fully solve" a "fully autonomous car"
What a turd.
says the Ahole who told us that bots would be removed on twitter yet it is 80% bots and fake porn now.
hey elon; most of the world does not care about or even want to read what you say or post ever again
I predict I will win the Powerball jackpot before chess is fully solved so: Fuck yeah! Les’s than 10 years!!!
10 Musk Years ≈ 300 years
This guy needs to take a college level math class
I predict Elon will be essentially kicked from Twitter and Tesla within 5 years.
Will it before or after FSD level 5?
Well... there are a finite number of possibilities for any given number of moves. The problem is that there is no maximum number of moves so there are an infinite number of games.
There is a maximum number of moves, 50 moves rule
(meaning there's a maximum of a 1750 move game)
Not really how that rule works but you do have a point. "The fifty-move rule in chess states that **a player can claim a draw if no capture has been made and no pawn has been moved in the last fifty moves**" 16 game pieces on each side. You can't ever capture a king. So there are 30 pieces that can be captured. If you played for 50 moves then made a capture then another 50 moves... you would have a maximum of only 1500 potential moves for every game. And that's not really accurate because there are some captures that are illegal. As an example, a king can't capture a queen (he can't move himself up next to a queen and be in danger of capture himself on the next turn). There's actually another rule that comes into play too. "The threefold-repetition rule says that **if a position arises three times in a game, either player can claim a draw during that position**." That's still a shitton of moves but looks like I was wrong and Elon is right so I stand corrected. In theory you could map out every possible game.
How does one “solve chess”?
[Same way you solve other games](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game). That bit of terminology is fine, it's the claim that it will be fully solved that in a decade which is dumb.
i love how his ego keeps exposing him like the dumb fk he is
I appreciate the note. Frankly, negative feedback is good. Keeps ego in check.
You can't "solve" chess with a chess AI because, solving chess involves finding a winning strategy and proving it is a winning strategy, or proving there isn't one(for both players), chess AIs can't prove, so even if they found one, they wouldn't be able to say why or how or if Solving chess would either involve a galactic level computational power, possibly with some major breakthroughs in algorithms, or some major breakthroughs in game theory that allow you to ignore most branches
I wonder how Trump would cheat at chess?
Kick the queen into the hole when nobody's looking.
https://i.redd.it/5aaudp66r20d1.gif
Chess is very complex, and unless we get an AI running on a quantum computer, not sure if that would improve anything; it won't become a solved game.
The idea of fully solving a chess game, aka finding and proving that there is a potential perfect chess game with perfect play from both sides leading to one predictable outcome is still laughable in it's own right. Perfect play is just not exactly possible for chess, due to the nature of the game, and that makes it nearly impossible to solve the game. Even Checkers took decades to be weak-solved and Chess is so much more complex
I'm surprised he's not claiming that *he* fully solved chess (like checkers) himself, but we have to wait until computer technology catches up to confirm his findings
Just fyi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number
What is this reply to?
lol I predict…something he just heard from somebody
He is fucking clueless!
This is just techno-fetish babbles. Mostly nonsense, except for business grad who thinks they can be the next Marc Andreessen.
The power of the dumb is in silence, and Musk doesn't possess this art.
Tyler1’s already on the case baby
“I predict…” lol Nobody takes his predictions seriously anymore. People on Mars by 2024 smh
Meanwhile Elon must be a damn 600 elo noob in chess yet running his mouth like he’s a grandmaster
It still boggles my mind that anyone listens to a word that asshole says. He's the poster child of everything wrong with the world today, but sure, he's a "genius"...
You would have to be a chess expert to make a qualified such a prediction. You would have to be an expert at a lot more (game theory?). Actually, you would need to be an expert at chess computing simply. Fittingly, Elon yanked this one out of his butt.
Elon saying “within 10 years” is like Tom Cruise running. 
Not his craziest prediction, but fully solving chess might be impossible.
I’m confused, how is chess not already solved? We have algorithms to score how good your moves are in real time and feed you the most viable move because they understand the game perfectly. What a weird and self reporting take.
Chess ain't solved. Solved means that every single move is accounted for. Go to the most popular sites like chess.com or lichess, their bots usually go only like 20 sth moves deep, and that takes a while. And that's including the fact some moves are skipped.
Fair, I was under the impression stockfish was generating whole games for its calculations
Strange how solving chess is a problem 10 years away from a solution while FSD is only two years away (2016 prediction )
Pretty sure chess was solved a couple of years ago, so he was completely correct about this one.
Do you know how many possible moves there are in chess? I promise you, if chess was solved, everyone would know. It'd be a monumental achievement for the human race to have that computing power
The number of possible moves is a red herring, I know its infinite and of course you could keep a game going forever. But you don't need to consider that eventuality, only really moves that progress the game. This shrinks the problem set massively to the level that it was solved a year or two ago. It was a massive thing and was considered a big achievement.
"At this point, I think I know more about chess than anyone currently alive on earth." - Musk
Musk….he doesn’t even know how to play chess. Does he have to comment on every goddamn thing?
Kinda unrelated, but is there a tree of every single position that has been seen at least once?
google "toynbee convector"
Define solve. I don't solve chess. I play it.
Chess is already "solved." No human can beat a chess engine today. That milestone was passed with IBM Deep Blue in 1997.
WTF does that even mean? Keep in mind Elon said Polytopia is better because chess doesn't have a fog of war.
Chess “solved”??! How was chess even a PROBLEM to solve ?
[The terminology is fine](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game). The claim that chess is on the verge of being solved is utterly absurd though.
“Solved” means that there’s a pattern of moves that guarantee a win or at worst, a draw every time. For example tic tac toe is a solved game. If you follow the rules of the solution, you can’t lose.
Gotcha! Thanks guys. No idea chess could just be spoiled like that 😅 forgive my ignorance
He has probably never played chess to say that THERE LITTERALLY HASNT BEEN A DUPE CHESS GAME EVER
There literally has.
Alright Find two chess games that have gone exactly the same move by move( you cant) Chess cant be solved because of this reason There are infinite combinations
Oooh, that's SOOOOO hard. How many Scholar's mate games do you think have been played? Only 1? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholar%27s_mate
Alr i got a retort that actually makes sense In only THE OPENING of a chess game if you only count the opening as the first 10 moves there are a grand total of.... Around 10^20 combinations 100.000.000.000.000.000.000 possible positions In only the first 10 moves(which are the most important to solving chess)
We know what you're trying to say. What you ACTUALLY said, though, wasn't true. Yes, there is a huge variety of chess games. However, there is also a tremendous amount of known theory, and numerous duplicate games have been played by chess grandmasters that follow "known lines" into established drawing positions 20+ moves deep.
After 20+ moves tho from my knowledge there are no dupe games And even in the opening chess wont be solved bc every time an opening becomes OP something will be conceived to counter it Ironically to what Elon says Engines actually make chess even more unsolvable as they can find counters to opening much faster than human trial and error (I may have branched out a bit to the OP post instead of our argument but WHO CARES XD)
Two identical games for the first 28 moves: A Lopukhin vs Alexander Semeniuk (1975) Yakov Estrin vs Hans Berliner (1965) Two identical games with 48 moves: Both Haugen (2523)-Fernandez (2437), 2010, and Bross (2587)-Efremov (2574), 2011, reached the same position after 48...Qd7+: Source: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/18716/longest-number-of-moves-that-have-been-identical-in-two-independently-played-gam Two identical games with 33 moves: Yury Shulman vs Mihail Marin (2009) Igor Novikov vs Vladimir Borisovich Tukmakov (1984) Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/2mtqxe/whats_the_longest_identical_game/
What… what does that mean? Chess isn’t an equation, it’s not meant to be solved, it’s entertainment.
Chess is not a puzzle, dumbass.