TalkChess.com

interesting paper:
http://tom7.org/chess/weak.pdf

the Association for Computational Heresy has more of this kind:
http://sigbovik.org/

Rémi Coulom wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:53 am interesting paper:
http://tom7.org/chess/weak.pdf

the Association for Computational Heresy has more of this kind:
http://sigbovik.org/

I like the Pacifist and Generous methods, both actually tops the rating list 2nd and 4th respectively .
Will use these in one of the versions of CDrill.

Rémi Coulom wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:53 am interesting paper:
http://tom7.org/chess/weak.pdf

the Association for Computational Heresy has more of this kind:
http://sigbovik.org/

Sorry for being dumb, but this p(champion) probability of the first paper derived from Markov discrete-time chain matrix is that at current (finishing) time of his tourney? I mean, if he had a 10 times longer tourney, the values of p in the table would diverge somewhat from smallest to largest values? So, bearing close relation to LOS matrix?

Reading this paper, my feeling goes like: He is joking, no he is serious, haha april fool joking, that is actually a good point, this is crap ...
I can't decide.

Daniel Shawul wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:28 pm Reading this paper, my feeling goes like: He is joking, no he is serious, haha april fool joking, that is actually a good point, this is crap ...
I can't decide.

Yeah, I feel the same, but AFTER reading your post. I was thinking that I just cannot collect myself to read this thing .

Laskos wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:50 pm

Daniel Shawul wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:28 pm Reading this paper, my feeling goes like: He is joking, no he is serious, haha april fool joking, that is actually a good point, this is crap ...
I can't decide.

Yeah, I feel the same, but AFTER reading your post. I was thinking that I just cannot collect myself to read this thing .

It is a joke you guys. If it helps, read the last page:

"The author would also like to thank the anonymous referees of the Special Interest Group on Bafflingly Overdone Ventures In Chess journal for their careful reviews."

With a source code like this https://sourceforge.net/p/tom7misc/svn/ ... unk/chess/ , I beg to differ

I'm pleasantly surprised that Topple turned up in that paper. It's pretty funny too

Albert Silver wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:20 pm It is a joke you guys. If it helps, read the last page:

"The author would also like to thank the anonymous referees of the Special Interest Group on Bafflingly Overdone Ventures In Chess journal for their careful reviews."

It's a SIGBOVIK paper; SIGBOVIK is a joke conference. But Tom7 frequently submits interesting-but-strange research to SIGBOVIK, so it's not a fake paper. He actually went through all of this to get a humourous result (and paper). Look up his previous stuff; he's done generic self-learning NES algorithms, autoconverting old games to 3D, a C89 compiler that compiles to readable ASCII (where the paper is in itself compilable), and much more.

He actually submitted multiple SIGBOVIK papers about chess this year. One of them covers known ground (which pieces are the most likely to survive, and what pieces on the chess board are the bloodiest), but I found the one about playing piece-blind chess interesting:

http://radar.spacebar.org/f/a/weblog/comment/1/1167

It turns out you can get to >500 Elo just by knowing where there are pieces, making a guess at which pieces those are using a neural network, and then going from there.

'Regarding this thread, I just found this fascinating video on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpXy041BIlA

Enjoy!
Álvaro.