Thank you. That is an amazing quote on a lot of levels.

The same how Magnus Carlsen says he never plays chess against a computer, because it makes no sense to do it.

It makes sense for practice.

Well, people don't play like computers, so this kind of practice can be useless.

How much of professional chess is metagaming the opponent vs. finding the best move from current game state?

From what pros are saying after matches, especially in classical chess, it's almost always preparation and metagaming the opponent vs finding good moves.

It's a lot of mind games involved, going for specific openings, repeating same moves as last match, doing a poor by surprising, move etc.

Many GMs said that to win a match you have to play non-ideal moves many times, otherwise it will likely end in a draw.

Magnus Carlson doesn't really need to practice chess (not in the same way most people do at least)

Well people will still pay to watch a human player play tennis even if a robot could play infinitely better than that human. Try something like that with an employer and software engineer combo (and no, you don't even have to imagine that).

People are still interested in chess even though computers are much better than humans.

those things are fscking relentless

I don’t like being this person, but you can very easily beat a wall at tennis.

What about a wall 1mm from the net

Yes? You just hit the ball so that every return is out. It’s very easy.

A curved wall?

Well look, the wall is already losing every point by volleying your serve so I feel like I'm on pretty strong ground here already. But give me an exact specification for your curved wall and I'll tell you how I'd beat it.