I've actually got a little tin-foil-hat pet theory that Chemistry is slowly dying as it approaches "completion" of its roots (macroscopic phenomena of matter), and is gradually being subsumed by Physics. To at least a silly layman like me, lots of bleeding-edge Chemistry nowadays reads like your average Physics, e.g. doing quantum simulations for protein folding, superconductors, etc.
I'm probably just being silly though, right?
This compute hard problem will take the world’s chemist to collaborate on a large scale because they don’t have a great database built yet that can enable this.
Computational chemistry tends to be done in collaboratiin between specialists, especially after grad school. You also have to confirm things - you can compute whatever you like, but there's no way to know if your simulation reflects reality without confirmation.
And in what way had physics has beaten chemistry in the case of LK99? They did a post-facto DFT calculation supporting the apparent results, which may or may not be real.
It seems like an illustration of why chemistry is as robust as ever.
As many other people have said, there is no physics or chemistry in solid-state materials; most universities will have multiple groups in this area across three to five different departments (physics, chemistry, materials science, materials engineering, earth sciences).
(The reason materials people were on DFT is that you need to simulate more atoms to model a material. Standard DFT methods scale as O(n^3) with system size, and there are linear-scaling methods like SIESTA and ONETEP; many computational chemistry methods like Configuration Interaction are much worse.)
Sociology < psychology < biology < chemistry < physics << math.