I agree, that was a weak analogy. Magnus stays employed because chess fans value watching humans compete, not because engines didn't replace his capabilities.
I've updated the post title to "Train with coding assistants like Magnus Carlsen trains with chess engines" to focus on the main point: the methodology. Magnus uses chess engines as sparring-partners to improve his game after matches. Same can be done by developers who will use coding assistants to level up their skills.
Companies automate the parts that are commodity. On messy product work (drifting specs, integration, liability), human + AI + good process > AI alone. The machine proposes; the human sets goals, constrains risk, writes/reads tests. That combo ships faster and with fewer costly mistakes than letting an ai free-run.
Yes, chess engines review your games and point out blunders. They also suggest moves you'd never consider. Like when you're analyzing a position and the engine recommends a move that flips the eval from -1.5 to +1.8. Similarly, coding assistants might suggest a solution you'd never considered.
Time is measurable, but they're measuring the wrong interval. Speed to first draft means nothing if every subsequent change takes longer because the code is unmaintainable. The technical debt from slop compounds: you're not saving time, you're borrowing it at a terrible interest rate.
In the long run, the LLM that produces less slop per request wins.
I've updated the post title to "Train with coding assistants like Magnus Carlsen trains with chess engines" to focus on the main point: the methodology. Magnus uses chess engines as sparring-partners to improve his game after matches. Same can be done by developers who will use coding assistants to level up their skills.
Thanks for calling this out.