Does a chess engine “understand” the position? If you define “understanding” as the ability to think like a human then Stockfish is obviously much worse at that. If you define understanding as the ability to choose the correct move, then Stockfish understands the position much better than any human.
The point being, you can choose to laden the word “understand” with the meaning of human-like thinking, in which case humans will always be superior by definition. Or you can choose a “many ways to Rome” definition of understanding that is purely focused on results.
Large language models understand language in their own way. Currently their results are inferior to humans’ but one day the results may be superior.
