Something weird is happening with LLMs and chess

I don't understand why educated people expect that an LLM would be able to play chess at a decent level.

It has no idea about the quality of it's data. "Act like x" prompts are no substitute for actual reasoning and deterministic computation which clearly chess requires.

Then you should be surprised that turbo-instruct actually plays well, right? We see a proliferation of hand-wavy arguments based on unfounded anthropomorphic intuitions about "actual reasoning" and whatnot. I think this is good evidence that nobody really understands what's going on.

If some mental model says that LLMs should be bad at chess, then it fails to explain why we have LLMs playing strong chess. If another mental model says the inverse, then it fails to explain why so many of these large models fail spectacularly at chess.

Clearly, there's more going on here.

There are some who suggest that modern chess is mostly a game of memorization and not one particularly of strategy or skill. I assume this is why variants like speed chess exist.

In this scope, my mental model is that LLMs would be good at modern style long form chess, but would likely be easy to trip up with certain types of move combinations that most humans would not normally use. My prediction is that once found they would be comically susceptible to these patterns.

Clearly, we have no real basis for saying it is "good" or "bad" at chess, and even using chess performance as an measurement sample is a highly biased decision, likely born out of marketing rather than principle.