AI Might Replace Careers, But Not Chess

Automation Boom

This blog is hardly a surprise to anybody. All the information, at least the fundamental essence of it, will be known to everybody; but, I have heard some individuals state that all careers may be negatively influenced. And although I agree with the fact that some careers will be eliminated, others in danger, while some new jobs are created, I disagree with the statement that all existing careers will be detrimentally effected.

Current labor statistics show that roughly 40% of global jobs are now highly exposed to AI automation. In advanced economies, that number jumps to 60%, with generative systems capable of handling up to 26% of tasks in even the most creative sectors like design, media, and legal research. A computer, a machine, can now make a contract, diagnose a disease, and render a film in seconds, as well as much more. The traditional definition of an "expert" is beginning to get a little bit hazy. Now, even through most people cannot fully see it, there is a slow transition going on where the value of a career is not output efficiency, but actually the human narrative (there are, of course, some exceptions.)

We Don't Care About "Efficiency"!

If efficiency were the only thing that mattered, chess should have died in 1997 when IBM’s Deep Blue defeated Garry Kasparov. By today's standards, Deep Blue was a computer compared to modern engines like Stockfish or AlphaZero. These machines, these entities, have an approximate traditional chess rating of above 3500, levels so ridiculously high that no human could ever dream of defeating it. So, the world of human chess is over, right? And since chess can be regarded as a creative aspect of humanity, can it also be said that creative careers might also experience a takeover?

Obviously, no. We do not care about computer efficiency and accuracy when it comes to fields like this. In fact, as of 2026, the chess market is exploding. Statistics are insane;

• The chess industry is valued at approximately $3.77 billion this year, projected to nearly double by 2034.
• Chess.com recently surpassed 250 million registered members, doubling its user base in just a few short years, even though Lichess is obviously like 10× better. This does not even consider OTB players not online and us Lichess users.
• The 2024 World Chess Championship saw a peak of 10 million concurrent viewers.
• etc etc etc

This all shows one thing that everybody knew for a long time. Chess is not going anywhere. People don't like chess and watch it to look at the perfect move, they want to see and experience the human aspect of it, which embodies a level of creativity and personality which AI and computers cannot replicate. They can defeat us, but they won't negatively affect the chess community. In fact, it can even be statistically argued that AI and computers boosted the game of chess's popularity even further and improved and helped the human aspect of it, which will only grow as time goes on.

Why Chess?

The reason chess is "AI/computer-proof" is because it, along with many other "creative" fields like art, writing, etc have features that are particular to the characteristics of an individual, though it is more subtle than other creative fields. It is the same reason we don’t watch two calculators compete to see who can multiply 8-digit numbers faster. Chess is a "mind sport," a creative thing, that thrives on the flaw. We can relate to a grandmaster's stress and anxiety when down on time, we can relate to a really good player's tremble when they make a blunder, and some of us can relate to that feeling of exhilaration when you make a creative, audacious sacrifice that the engine deems okayish, but to you, is legendary. AI and computers have partially "solved" chess (don't take that literally), but it can never fully understand it the way that a human does.

This all provides a vague outline of the game's future. AI will take over the "solved" parts of it, the parts which can be automated, the technical areas, like data entry, basic coding, etc, which leaves humans with everything else. We will keep our blunders. We will keep our creativity. We will keep chess. AI cannot replace players, but in the modern world, it actually made them more audacious, made the game more interesting. This is because with the help of chess computers, humans now use "centaur" methods where humans learn from engines to reach new heights of creativity. This led to many things, from the refinement to the validation of many lines, including hypermodern openings like the English (check out my blog about it, you boring e4 players!). The gold standard, where AI is integrated to improve stuff, is also effecting chess in a positive manner. This is turning into a place where one's value is not based on how much they know, because the AI and computers will know more, but how good you apply that knowledge in a human manner.

Creativity Will Stay

Chess is an example of how fields that have human creativity will persist and survive regardless to how powerful AI gets; whether it is art, leadership, strategy, or literature, the "human" element to that area is the only thing that AI cannot replicate, the only thing that AI cannot touch, because it is the only thing that AI can never experience. AI might be able to find the winning move, but it will never know why, and how, good it felt to play it. AI might be able to find the winning move, but it cannot understand and analyse the concept in a creative manner the way that a human can. As long as we value that feeling, as long as we value that ability of ours, it will stay.

Thank you! Please like!

---