>the rules of chess never change Actually, they do under FIDE rules. For example, the 50 move rule has changed many times, even in my lifetime, to different nu

>the rules of chess never change Actually, they do under FIDE rules. For example, the 50 move rule has changed many times, even in my lifetime, to different numbers, and there is pressure to change it yet again. They also added a 75 move rule (50 requires player intervention, 75 is automatic). They recently abolished the automatic draw for insufficient material rule. They added a new "dead position" rule that forces a draw. They recently removed a perpetual check draw rule. They added an automatic fivefold repetition draw rule, to go along with the requiring claim for the threefold repetition rule. If you don't like FIDE rules, then each national federation has rules that also change. So claiming the rules never change is simply not true. The rules have changed many, many times, some in pretty big ways (see all the changes in promotion rules since 1800) in the past few hundred years, as well as in even the last decade. Google and read. >there's always an objective ground truth That "objective ground truth" is not computable. If it were, chess would be weakly solved (in the game theoretic sense), and it is not, and is expected to never be so. It's too complex. Since no AI can access the "objective truth" of a position, it's no different than what LLMs do - they are measuring next move under some fuzzy AI generated probability distribution over the next move (or token, if you prefer). >so I don't see how this counters my point You had a belief, and made a claim to rationalize it, and the claim was false. Usually that should cause to to rethink the belief, not double down on it. That a game of chess ends with a ternary outcome is irrelevant since AlphaZero is not training on that uncomputable function - it's training on it's own predicted move versus a statistical sampling of the move quality. It never ever knows the "truth" of the outcome of a give position because that cannot be computed - it is far too big. Your claim: >but LLM loss function rewards it for predicting the next token. and now "the next token" might be something that an AI wrote previously is no different than: "but AlphaZero loss function rewards it for predicting the next move quality. and certainly the next move quality might be something AlphaZero estimated previously". >is changing right now as LLMs emit words into the noosphere Chess knowledge is also changing right now as AlphaZero emits new games and even new chess ideas into the noosphere (plenty of GMs have written on how they are rethinking certain positions, and this "knowledge" can be fed into newer engines/AIs as desired....) Not a lot of difference is there?