That sentence was awkward. Maybe even a typo? The following sentences to the one you just quoted ignores that and proceeds to argue FOR blindfolded chess being like programming with LLMs.
The article itself takes several paragraphs to get to the argument it wants to make and then ends having only argued for a few more sentences. No real evidence is provided either.
Well no, it argues that the SKILLS for playing blindfold chess are similar to people who use LLMs to develop code - not that blindfold chess = vibe coding.
And then earlier in the article defines said skills as having a sense of high-level relationships (chunking, positioning, etc) over the board rather than a photographic memory of the board.
But as I said, the whole article feels very fluffy anyway.
The article itself takes several paragraphs to get to the argument it wants to make and then ends having only argued for a few more sentences. No real evidence is provided either.