Will AI Destroy Us?


Just start with Armageddon mode from the beginning.When humans can play optimally with that time pressure, just cancel chess.


At the highest echelons of the chess world they who wins is really just who plays the least mistakes all the way through, and at that level basically no one makes mistakes.

I’m not sure why you’d want to force them to just beat on each other like that for no real reason. We all know they’re going to, probably, draw every single game. Their ELO’s are within 2 points of each other, they’d probably need 100 games played against each other to have one loss/forfeit, so why not make it more fun?

Randomize the starting position, make the board larger/with more pieces, something. Chess needs to grow IMO.


Will AI destroy us?

I say. Can it, please? :joy:


I literally just listened to a gaming podcast’s guest episode about chess which covered topics like blitz, Chess960, chess engines, online chess communities, tournaments, etc.

It’s likely most people in this thread don’t know there are chess streamers with hyper-local levels of popularity on twitch and youtube taking breaks from their usual streams to cover recaps of the world championship matches.


That headline


I like the pros battling to a total standstill. It’s very Old Man and the Sea arm wrestling match.


It continues:

This really is going to come down to the speed chess tiebreakers where eventually someone will make a mistake and become unable to force a draw.


I still say if they’re gonna play something so different as the tie breaker. Maybe they should just arm wrestle or something.

There’s about as much a difference between long form chess and speed chess as there is long form chess and shop car racing.


What kind of difference? It’s the exact same game, only one is harder because it forces you to think faster.

Here’s another acceptable alternative. Let’s just play slow chess to a draw, as in all the other games. However, whichever player spent less time thinking is the winner.


Long-distance running and sprinting are the same game, too.


Maybe that alternative would work. But I’m speaking from experience here. I used to play chess at RIT and when I switched to speed chess it was like a whole different game.

It changes the game from being analytical to being one you go to from feel and instinct. A more apt comparison may be switching from programming to whackamole.

Those have about as much in common as long form chess and speed chess.


Assuming Scott is going to have a bad take on running.

They’re so different that it’s almost impossible to be competitive in both.

My short times literally suffer if I train for long runs, and vice versa. You need a different body.

But, as a physical sport, I do believe it isn’t really an apt analogy in this case.


No, but slow and fast chess are. You are making the same decisions with the same rules. The only difference is the amount of time you are given to make the decision.

We’ve already determined that given a very long period of time both players can arrive at the best decision. The only way to separate them is to see who can arrive at that decision faster. The brain “muscle” used to make the calculation is the same.

Long and short distance running are actually completely different. There’s no jumping out of a gate in long distance running. The form and body motions are completely different. The same muscles aren’t used the same way.


Holy shit you got it spot on.

The only exception is that at the upper ends of competition, the long-distance runners run with basically the same form and pace as the short-distance runners. They’re just monsters with monster DNA and monster training. They’ll run a marathon in the time I run half a marathon, and their marathon form looks like my 5k form.

However, those people are rarely competitive in the shorter races. They’re better then most everyone on earth, but not the people who dedicate their bodies solely to short races.

I retract any shade I was preparing.


“I am a professional whackamole player” - Scott probably


You simply aren’t good enough to engage the same mechanism you use in slow chess quickly enough to make a decision in fast chess. Given the necessity of making a decision, you fall back on a different mechanism.

The best player in the world should be able to use the same analytical mechanism faster than the second best player in the world can. We can see that they are both nearly perfect, so we have to press them for time to see who breaks first.


I don’t think chess works like that. The best chess player just analyzes the game further than I can in the same amount of time.

We’d both be reduced to instinct in speed chess. Admittedly they’d have better instincts but the two games test different skills

One tests chess playing ability the other tests chess playing instincts. If you wanna know who has the best chess playing instincts. Speed chess world champions are readily available.

If you want to know who the best player is. You must play the stunningly boring long form game.

Ironically, I just looked into it, seems the blitz chess champ is also the world chess champ. Damn that guy is good.


If they’re reduced to instinct so quickly, then they’re not that fucking good, are they?


Hey man stop taking my lines. You know I can’t be the smart one around here, I’ve gotta have something to offer in the ensemble, or I’ll slip down to being an expositionary background character.


“Tetris world champs aren’t that fucking good” - Scott probably