If black and white had different permutations of the back row, you could find more balanced starting positions. Adopt more flexible starting conditions in the computer chess age.
I don’t even know what to do about LLM authored articles. Do the prompt engineers hitting enter understand it’s difficult to read and off putting? Could HN use a secondary AI tag/flag?
Sadly I think it’ll be just a dead, poorly written internet moving forward.
Maybe the article is interesting. I don’t know. It’s exhausting to read.
I agree but I'm not sure if I'm biased given the nonstop negative comments about AI texts, on top of every text having the same style (which would be equivalent to a human writing every page on the Internet).
Would we think this was poorly written if we read just this one text 20 years ago? I don't know the answer.
"Good" or "bad" writing cannot be decided in vacuum: it is decided by the culture examining it.
One example is cliched writing.
Things become cliche as they are get overused; no amount of cleverness in the cliche itself can overcome this. Claude's writing has rapidly become cliche because it uses the same pool of stock phrases and words. People pick up on this and have the same reaction as they do to any other cliche piece.
So yes, most would not think this is poorly written 20 years ago because this style didn't exist yet and it wasn't cliche. Let's take two works generally seen as good: if Lord of the Rings or Foundation released today, they would probably be panned as cliche because they created those tropes in the first place, which future authors copied or built upon.
Claude vibe-writing isn't "bad" because it is grammatically or structurally bad. It's bad because it's overused and signals to the reader - whether intentional or not - certain things about how much the prompter values the written piece.
It’s definitely structurally bad. If you run normal Claude output against various readability metrics they generally come out terrible. I had one pin a particularly bad piece of Claude output at needing 24 years of schooling.
If you want to read something interesting and edifying about chess960, the classical starting position, and other interesting starting positions, might I recommend instead this wonderful paper? https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.14319
Write bad English in Goggle Docs a accept most of the orthography and grammar correction. Avoid the magical button that uses fake pixel dust to "polish" the text because the text smells like AI after that.
17 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 24.0 ms ] thread...as opposed to a dishonest score?
Sadly I think it’ll be just a dead, poorly written internet moving forward.
Maybe the article is interesting. I don’t know. It’s exhausting to read.
Would we think this was poorly written if we read just this one text 20 years ago? I don't know the answer.
One example is cliched writing.
Things become cliche as they are get overused; no amount of cleverness in the cliche itself can overcome this. Claude's writing has rapidly become cliche because it uses the same pool of stock phrases and words. People pick up on this and have the same reaction as they do to any other cliche piece.
So yes, most would not think this is poorly written 20 years ago because this style didn't exist yet and it wasn't cliche. Let's take two works generally seen as good: if Lord of the Rings or Foundation released today, they would probably be panned as cliche because they created those tropes in the first place, which future authors copied or built upon.
Claude vibe-writing isn't "bad" because it is grammatically or structurally bad. It's bad because it's overused and signals to the reader - whether intentional or not - certain things about how much the prompter values the written piece.