this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2026
136 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
914 readers
600 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments


The twitter format is annoying to parse but if you reread the op and you will see that you have just paraphrased the very first thing that Musk said.
I'm not taking about moves that are simply considered optimal within a metagame but moves that are not strictly bad.
If a game is solved then following the optimal strategy will always win, so making "distinguishing moves" will always result in losing the game. If the players are deliberately avoiding studying or using the known optimal strategy then the game has indeed become like checkers.
Personally I feel that once computers have surpassed humans at a game there is a je ne sais quoi that is lost and can never be regained. There will never be the same awe seeing inspired plays and innovative strategies developed once I know in the back of my head that there is a known objectively better strategy out there. Not everyone will feel that way obviously, some can ignore the elephant and some cannot.
I think that this paragraph assumes a capacity for memorization that humans just don't have. My contention is that, even if chess is "solved", the variations that branch off of the "perfect game" will still be so complex that whether or not a player knows how to punish a suboptimal move from their opponent will be an open question. IMO it would just result in a new opening game playbook that everyone memorizes, and then the decision of where and when to break off from the optimal path will become the differentiator of skill.
And noted on the OP thing, I didn't read that right at all.