Bot moves

Can ChatGPT play chess? A few weeks ago, when the AI chatbot was making headlines, someone had the cute idea of getting it to play a game against the popular chess engine Stockfish. At the start, it followed a standard line of the Ruy Lopez opening. But soon the illegal moves began – ChatGPT tried to castle before its bishop was out of the way. Later, it added pieces to the board from nowhere, queens jumped over knights, and rooks teleported magically around the board. I repeated this experiment myself, with similar phantasmagorical results, all while the bot supplied nonsensical explanations for its moves. Indeed, ChatGPT cannot play chess, and it was fun to watch its collapsing facade of cogency.

Teehee, silly computer! But once in a while, one is jolted by the awkward fact that human explanations are not altogether different. After a game of chess, I know that any attempt to reconstruct my thought processes will be an exercise in frustration. Sometimes I can give a lucid account of why I made a particular move. But all too often there are logical lacunae which simply can’t be explained. I don’t mean emotional decision-making, which has its place, since there are lots of situations where you have to trust your gut. What really baffles me is when obvious glitches occur even during purposeful, rational thought. All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is immortal. Say what?

Take the position I reached in a game from the German Bundesliga last weekend. Playing Black, my bishop on e6 is attacked and pinned, and 18…Nd4 19 fxe6! is no good. But I had foreseen that I could castle queenside, counterattacking the bishop on d3. After 18…O-O-O 19 fxe6 Qxd3 20 Qxd3 Rxd3 21 exf7 Black stands well, but I felt that rounding up the f7 pawn could be a faff, and recalled the classic wisdom – ‘If you see a good move, look for a better one’.