Engine-Equal, Human-Unequal: A Reproducible Outcome Skew in Engine-Assessed Equal Chess Positions

We present ChessMimic, a system of three small encoder-only transformers - for move, thinking-time, and outcome prediction - conditioned on the position, recent move history, player rating, and clock state. We fit a separate instance of each model per 100-Elo rating band, trading parameter efficiency for sharper per-skill calibration. On a held-out month-wide slice of Lichess Rated Blitz games ChessMimic's human move prediction accuracy outperforms Maia-2 in every Elo band. Compared to Maia-3, our 9M parameter model's accuracy sits between Maia-3-5M and Maia-3-23M without the additional complexity of Geometric Attention Bias. In addition to the move matching model, we also train a game outcome model that conditions not only on the position, but also player ratings, time control, and remaining clock times. The outcome model achieves an AUC of 0.78 out of sample, beating Maia-2 as well as logistic regressions based on material, ratings, and clock time. Finally, we train a clock model that predicts human thinking times. The clock model provides a usable but non-SOTA per-ply think-time signal under ALLIE-style filters (Pearson r = 0.41, Spearman rho = 0.50, MAE 4.10 s, against ALLIE's reported r = 0.70), with the residual gap concentrated in per-position bucket sharpness rather than bucket-marginal calibration. A public demo is at 1e4.ai and we release code, per-band weights, and the C++ data-filter pipeline code in GitHub.

Chess engines have evolved from search-based systems optimized solely for strength to neural policies capable of modeling human decisions across much of the rating spectrum. Maia-3, the strongest human-like move policy for chess, models the typical moves of a given rating but does not model high Elo strength well (2500+ Lichess Elo) nor has an extensible architecture for modeling individual play style. On the other hand, search-based engines like Stockfish are far stronger than any known human but struggle to model human-like play. To solve these problems, we present Matilda, a permutation-invariant set transformer that re-ranks the full legal-move distribution produced by a frozen Maia-3 and improves it along both dimensions with one 1.7M-parameter model. Matilda uses Maia-3 to provide both global context and search candidates. Context is encoded from Maia-3's hidden representation, time control, and an optional 32-dimensional player-style vector, while the top-16 candidate moves are optionally rescored by Stockfish. A zero-initialized head scatters per-candidate adjustments back into the policy logits, so the untrained model is exactly Maia-3 and every gain is value-added under full-vocabulary NLL. On a 2500+ Elo benchmark from Lichess, Matilda improves on Maia-3 by +0.5-0.6% below 2800 but +4.3%, +11.9%, and +21.9% at 2800-2900, 2900-3000, and 3000+, respectively, and an additional +0.41% overall from player-style embeddings. Ablations show that the improvements are primarily driven by the engine-derived features, the mechanism is not engine-specific, and the gains survive memorization, sibling, and account audits while preserving Maia-3 at 1000-2500 Elo. Because search supervision is modular, Matilda naturally supports interchangeable search engines, demonstrated by replacing Stockfish with an AlphaZero-family engine.

Superhuman game engines in domains like chess have made expert-level evaluations easily accessible, yet they communicate what is true without the natural-language explanations that make such expertise educationally useful to experts and non-experts alike. Large language models could, in principle, bridge this gap, but they frequently hallucinate due to limited domain-specific knowledge, and standard reference-based or LLM-as-a-judge frameworks cannot reliably detect these errors. In this work, we present ACT-Eval, an evaluation framework that decomposes chess commentary into atomic claims and routes them to engine-supported tools and expert-annotated gold references to assess factual correctness, conceptual coverage, and move-quality judgment. We release a benchmark of 325 position--move pairs spanning pedagogical, tournament, and critical positions, including 125 positions with expert-verified gold atoms and a five-class error taxonomy. Evaluating leading proprietary and open-weight models, we find that factual hallucinations remain pervasive in chess commentary: GPT-5.4 without tools produces incorrect sub-claims 22.0% of the time, while smaller open-weight models exceed 40%. Although tool augmentation substantially improves factual correctness and move-quality assessment, coverage of expert strategic and tactical ideas remains limited across all models. Human calibration shows that ACT-Eval's factual judgments fall within the observed range of inter-human agreement, while its coverage scores correlate strongly with human assessments of strategic completeness.