Musk claims chess is 'about to be solved', Chess.com responds gracefully: What's the truth about chess complexity?

Just a social media post, but it sparked a major debate. When Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, declared on X that chess would 'soon be completely solved by AI', no one in the chess community doubted this would be an unequal battle. But what he didn't anticipate was the response from Chess.com, the world's largest chess platform, which turned a seemingly dry debate about game theory into a graceful war of words that captured the attention of millions. Context: The 53-year-old tech billionaire wrote on his social media: 'Within the next 10 years, no human chess player will be able to beat AI, and AI will find a way to solve chess using information compression methods that human imagination cannot fathom.' This statement immediately met with skepticism from the chess community. The CEO of Chess.com did not directly refute it, but merely reposted a short message: 'The number 10^120 (the number of possible chess games) is larger than the number of atoms in the observable universe (approximately 10^80). If you intend to solve chess, we would very much like to see how your algorithm works with this number.' But what surprised everyone even more was how Chess.com used Vietnamese in their replies, a small detail that reveals an extremely sophisticated communication strategy. 'The number of atoms in the universe'. So what is the real story? Based on decades of experience following chess as well as researching artificial intelligence, I can confidently say that both Musk and Chess.com have valid arguments, but the issue is that they are talking about different concepts. There is a fundamental difference that many people often confuse when debating about 'solving' a board game. The number 10^120 that Chess.com mentions is the 'game tree complexity', meaning the total number of possible move sequences from the initial position until the game ends. This number is calculated based on each side having an average of about 30 legal moves per turn, and a game lasting about 80 moves. The result is 10^120, an incredibly large number. But Musk is also correct in a theoretical sense, because the number of legal positions that a piece can occupy on a chess board is actually about 10^44, much smaller than the 10^80 atoms in the universe. However, he is using the concept of 'number of game states' to replace the 'number of feasible paths', and this is a very subtle sleight of hand. For a game to be called 'solved', we need to determine the optimal outcome from every legal position. With 10^44 legal positions, solving chess becomes an extremely difficult problem. In 2026, the checkers solving project had to spend 18 years using complex computational techniques and thousands of computers to solve 5x10^20 legal positions. Compared to chess's 10^44, this is a tiny number. Even with the development of quantum computers, we are still far from being able to fully solve chess. Interestingly, this debate by Musk is not the first time he has expressed his views on chess. In 2026, there was information suggesting that Musk had stopped a chess event at Tesla headquarters. By 2026, he continued to share that 'chess is too simple compared to real life', citing reasons such as no fog of war, no technology tree, and too balanced starting positions. This partly reveals his systematic view of the complexity of games. But Musk's viewpoint carries deep philosophical and technical implications. He suggests that a future super AI will discover information compression methods 'beyond human imagination', which could solve chess without having to enumerate all positions and moves. This is a speculative argument and a call for faith in a technology that does not yet exist, rather than a verifiable scientific theory. Chess platforms and the player community did not stay silent. Chess.com quickly provided real numbers to refute Musk's claim. Their social media account replied: 'There is a confusion here: 10^120 is the number of possible games, while 10^44 is the number of legal positions. Although 10^44 is much smaller than 10^80, it is still too large. Furthermore, what you're missing the most is: chess was made for humans, and we will still play chess even when machines surpass human abilities.' A small detail related to Vietnamese: in a reply to a user, Chess.com wrote: 'Yes, but due to skill only' or 'We have our own illusions about being the world's best chess player.' These phrases were subtly written in Vietnamese, showing they understand the Vietnamese chess community very well, a country with a very strong chess tradition. But what's noteworthy is how they deliberately created a low-level conversation, especially when they called the account operator an 'intern', a subtle move to deny the billionaire's condescension. In an AI competition reported by Business Insider in late 2026, xAI's Grok 4 model lost to OpenAI's o3 model in an AI chess tournament. This event may explain why Musk made such statements: when his own AI product is inferior to competitors in chess, declaring that chess is 'about to be solved' is a way to redefine the game, devaluing a game he cannot win. My view on the 'chess is solved' issue does not stop at the technical level. It reflects a broader crisis of confidence in society's relationship with artificial intelligence. When Musk declares that chess will be solved by AI, he unintentionally makes some chess players feel that their efforts are meaningless. This is particularly dangerous when considering that 231 million chess players worldwide play chess every day to train their brains, for entertainment, or to develop strategic thinking. But what Musk and tech technocrats don't understand is that chess is not just a puzzle to be solved; chess is a stage for humans to express their creativity. When the stadium is empty, I hear the match whispering in a different language. Another blind spot this debate reveals is the use of chess as a 'benchmark' to evaluate AI capabilities. The fact that Grok 4 lost to o3 in an AI chess tournament is not just a competitive result, but also creates a new commercial entertainment category: AI companies organizing AI chess tournaments to promote their products. This could create new sponsorship sources for tournaments and attract more viewers, but it also reflects a worrying reality: chess is increasingly being reduced to a testing tool, rather than a human heritage. Chess.com has reacted very well. They didn't just stop at defending the complexity of the game but also cleverly reminded people why chess is so beloved: it's where human intellect crystallizes. In 2026, when IBM's Deep Blue supercomputer defeated Garry Kasparov, people predicted that chess would become boring. But 30 years later, the number of online chess players has multiplied, and chess tournaments still attract more viewers than ever. Chess players are not afraid of AI development; on the contrary, they use AI as a supporting tool to analyze games and improve their skills. The pitch never lies, only we deceive ourselves with applause. In a recent survey by Chess.com of over 12,000 users, when asked 'What is your purpose for playing chess?', up to 94% of respondents answered that they play chess for 'the joy of thinking', not to 'prove they can beat an AI'. This number shows a very clear reality: AI surpassing humans in intellectual games has been accepted and normalized. But this doesn't diminish the value of chess for humans. Regarding the Musk and Chess.com story, I believe the final answer lies not in numbers. The truth is, even if AI can solve chess, players with 2026, 2500 Elo ratings, or even super grandmasters like Magnus Carlsen, will still enter tournaments with burning passion. Chess doesn't end when humans step away from the board; it only ends when we stop finding joy in thinking. In fact, this story also raises a bigger question for chess platforms. Musk's interaction with Chess.com generated a huge amount of traffic and attention, showing the power of social media in promoting chess. But it's also a double-edged sword: if this conversation only stays at the level of controversy and brings momentary attention, it will have no impact on the long-term development of chess. Conversely, if stories like this help the public better understand the complexity and intellectual value of chess, then that would be a real victory. When the stands are empty, I hear the match whisper in a different language. Musk is a visionary tech entrepreneur, and his view on AI's potential is well-founded. But attaching a 'solving' label to chess misses the essence of this game. Chess is like a play where each game is a unique performance, never repeated. This play wasn't written to find a perfect ending, but to enjoy the process unfolding under the spotlight.