Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
coding-with-ai.dev
Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
1–10 of 65 posts
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#2We're not all Magnus Carlsen. Some of us are hacks or very ordinary 'players', and can be replace without a ripple on the pond.
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#3[deleted]
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#4We're not all Magnus Carlsen. Some of us are hacks or very ordinary 'players', and can be replace without a ripple on the pond.
Fair point but Magnus wasn't born Magnus. He became world champion partly by doing what the article describes: using engines for post-game analysis. A 1200-rated chess player who reviews their games with an engine improves faster than one who doesn't.
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#5> Code review becomes your post-game analysis. Magnus reviews his games with engines to learn from their superior analysis. You review LLM code to ensure it's actually correct.
If AI coding assistents really worked like Chess engines, they would review your code, pointing out issues and suggesting improvements.
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#6> Code review becomes your post-game analysis. Magnus reviews his games with engines to learn from their superior analysis. You review LLM code to ensure it's actually correct. If AI coding assistents really worked like Chess engines, they would review your code , pointing out issues and suggesting improvements.
Yes, chess engines review your games and point out blunders. They also suggest moves you'd never consider. Like when you're analyzing a position and the engine recommends a move that flips the eval from -1.5 to +1.8. Similarly, coding assistants might suggest a solution you'd never considered.
Both teach something new.
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#7We're not all Magnus Carlsen. Some of us are hacks or very ordinary 'players', and can be replace without a ripple on the pond.
Fair point but Magnus wasn't born Magnus. He became world champion partly by doing what the article describes: using engines for post-game analysis. A 1200-rated chess player who reviews their games with an engine improves faster than one who doesn't.
If I'm understanding this right his ELO was 2064 in 2001 when he was 11. I don't think he was using engines for post-game analysis at 11 or maybe he was, but he was certainly born better at chess than most people.
https://ratings.fide.com/profile/1503014/chart
I love the original article. Hey guys you just have to be the best programmer in the world to not be replaced by AI!
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#8> Code review becomes your post-game analysis. Magnus reviews his games with engines to learn from their superior analysis. You review LLM code to ensure it's actually correct. If AI coding assistents really worked like Chess engines, they would review your code , pointing out issues and suggesting improvements.
That's definitely possible, just not perfect but they can catch/point out some bugs.
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#9And to what end? I sometimes get the impression software people want to optimize out everything so in the end, when there's nothing left to do, they can lay down and die.
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#10This is a poor analogy. Magnus Carlsen stays because chess consumers decide to pay for humans even though they are inferior to Stockfish. BigCorp will always pick machine over you if they can.