Every time someone makes a comparison to chess I die inside. Chess is a spectator sport primarily funded by a few eccentric billionaires. Players artificially constrain themselves in timed environments knowing that they will never be able to produce better moves than a smartphone because a select few people find it interesting. Only ~30 top professionals actually make enough money to have a full career playing chess, maybe a few hundred more can sustain a meager lifestyle with coaching gigs. I shudder to imagine what will happen to the tens of thousands of non-Fields medalist caliber mathematicians if math goes the way of chess. Perhaps Terence Tao and a few other famous mathematicians will be funded by Peter Thiel to report on how well humanity can keep up with the machines? How do you expect any mathematician to be optimistic about this comparison.

Fully agreed. As someone who both loves chess and works on chess engines... these comparisons to chess needs to stop.

The distinction is mathematician vs mathematics. Mathematics is going to reach new heights beyond the wildest dreams of contemporary mathematicians. But perhaps without the participation of many paid mathematicians.

Another noteworthy difference is that Stockfish is also gpl.