Move sequences are automatically highlighted and made clickable. If the previous move number appears earlier in the comment, the sequence continues from that move. Otherwise, it's treated as a variation from the main line. This can be error-prone with multiple sequences in one comment, so please use the Preview button to check your work before posting.
To force a sequence to be treated as a main line variation, precede it with a vertical bar
(|). The copy variation button (⧉) includes this bar automatically.
For more complex discussions, you can name a sequence by adding the name in square
brackets at the end, e.g. 15.p9 [a]. Later in the same comment, or in
any following comment, you can branch off that variation by wrapping the name in vertical
bars, like this:|a| 16.o13
The variation name must start with
a letter, contain only letters, numbers, and dashes (-), and is case-sensitive.
Comments use UTF-8 encoding, so you can include emojis 😉, non-English characters, and other Unicode symbols.
You can also use HTML entities like — for an em-dash (—) or → for a right arrow (→).
For safety reasons, most HTML tags are stripped, except:
<b>, <i>, <u> — bold, italic, underline<em>, <strong> — emphasis, strong text<s>, <strike> — <sup>, <sub> — superscript, subscript<blockquote> — indented quotes
<code> — fixed-width font<pre> — multi-line preformatted text
<br> — forces a line break
(I did not check Twixtbot, because my Twixtbot is broken. My PySimpleGUI license has expired, and they don't offer the free hobbyist license anymore. I'd have to pay $99, and I'm thinking, you know, the way things are going, soon we'll just vibe code our own Twixtbots....)
Why Grok? As I understand it, the best coding LLMs are Gemini and Claude. Gemini even has a free coding IDE called Antigravity. I haven't tried it.
Your point about LLMs lacking visual world models is well taken. They can discuss Twixt positions if fed structured input or a rendered board, but they don't "see" spatial relationships the way a true engine—or human—does. They can fake insight, but not simulate. For now, they’re more useful as commentators than as players.
In terms of architecture, even multimodal LLMs like Gemini or GPT-4V parse images as flattened spatial grids, not persistent object graphs. So while they can extract features, they don’t maintain the kind of dynamic, spatially-updating state that a Twixt engine—or a chess engine—relies on for position evaluation.
I may be more likely to wrongly assume the back end is easy.
It was just a flip comment, not a well-researched engineering recommendation. I could be totally wrong. I've never used Leela Zero, so I don't know how hard it is to set it up, or teach it a game, or how long the training takes. I have no plans to work on it. What I think is that what little I've vibe coded leads me to believe these AIs, such as they are today, are more comfortable with starting from scratch than working in an existing codebase. But if anyone decides to work on it, they should make that decision for themselves.
And this may be more about the future than the present, but the point of vibe coding is to make programming tasks small.
My comment was meant to invoke the idea of prompting for a Twixtbot, wait for it to train up, and there it is. I don't know how many prompts this would take today, but someday, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be one.