What my dad taught me about AI coding in the 90s
In the late 1990s, the author's dad taught him to play blindfolded chess, a skill that hinges on tracking relationships and possibilities rather than a photographic memory. Years later, as LLMs transform programming, the author argues that the same skills that make a strong blindfold chess player—deep mental models, pattern recognition, and disciplined attention—are exactly what programmers need to thrive when using AI coding tools like Claude Code, even without reading or writing code themselves. He reflects on the challenge of maintaining control and understanding in an AI-driven workflow, and notes that unlike chess, measuring such programming skill will become impossible as AI can solve any quantifiable metric.
Thus in many ways programming with AI is the opposite of blindfold chess: you don't have to pay attention every turn, you don't have to remember what the important pieces are, the details of the tactical relationships (such as code interfaces and APIs).
- simonw
I'm not completely convinced by this comparison between blind chess and prompting LLMs.
In blind chess you get deterministic information about the state of the board: each mental update to your board model can be precise, and you have the full state at every point in time.
LLMs are notoriously non-deterministic, and even at temperature zero you still can't predict exactly where the weights will take you next.
I suppose you can get closer to deterministic if you adopt a prompting style where you almost dictate every line of code, but at that point the coding agent is more of a typing assistant.
The productivity benefits of coding agents unlock themselves when you figure out how to turn short prompts - "add tests that exercise the registration form and check the happy path and all failure states" - into larger changes.
If you're completely blind to the results of those you're going to end up with a system you don't 100% understand very quickly. In blind chess terms you'll no longer know the positions of every piece on the board.
- dzonga
it's a Sunday - I don't have time to put things into buckets.
there's coding - writing code to do something could be a game, utility to move files around. what have you. inherently the nature is a closed domain. AI is perfect here - the impact if something goes wrong is close to 0 or null.
then there's software engineering - which is both an art & science. u r dealing with rules of thumb. nothing is ever coded / written down. but a feel to whether something feels right or not. the domain is unbounded. the impact of something going wrong is catastrophic in all dimensions. coding is a delivery mechanism for software engineering. but not the actual work. using A.I here is useless.
but we keep having these pieces - I guess that's just shallow the industry is.
- qbane
I do not think the metaphor can go very far. Have blindfolded chess become the "productivity trend" that every one should learn it to enjoy chess? Have normal chess players been replaced because skilled players can do blindfolded?
- yipinwong
Analogies work at an abstraction, and gotta take the chess analogy at its face value, as deeper people go into what's different between the chess and real life (deterministic vs non-deministic), one is not getting the lesson the author is presenting.
Remember, analogy is not territory. Every analogies fail at some point
- tikimcfee
I really like this idea, because I think people forgetting that when you are writing code there exist a time T greater than zero, where you're not actually writing code and you're doing this thing called "thinking", ha ha. I find that there's a lot of times where I'm sitting staring at the screen and the lines of text sort of blur, and I'm in my head thinking about the connection of everything and not really worried about the actual implementation and how bites are moving, but wondering about the structure and the nature of the actual flow of the code. There's a wonderful XKCD about this, where a person sitting on a computer has this very beautiful stack of thoughts and clouds about what's being written, and then someone walks up to them and says something, and the entire cloud pops. If I understand this article, I think that's exactly a reasonable analogy to it. There is something that happens in the mind, and perhaps a neural weights, where the non-execution is where creativity and problem solving happening by mapping to the higher level concepts and stitching them together without having to specifically worry about the line level details. They still crop up, and implementation will probably always be king, But I do think I agree with this entirely!