Overview

Chess research studies how machines can choose strong moves, model human play, explain strategy, and recognize board positions. Common approaches include tree search and self-play reinforcement learning, neural policies trained on game records, and transformers or language models for move prediction and explanations. Systems are evaluated on game strength, move-prediction accuracy across player ratings, tactical puzzles, and board-recognition benchmarks. A central challenge is balancing strength with human-like behavior and reliable explanations, while testing whether models generalize beyond familiar positions rather than merely matching patterns.

Latest papers

31 papers7 papers in the last four weeks, up 133% on the four weeks before. 0.0% of all new papers.

Mar 5, 2026

Ailed: A Psyche-Driven Chess Engine with Dynamic Emotional Modulation

Chess engines passed human strength years ago, but they still don't play like humans. A grandmaster under clock pressure blunders in ways a club player on a hot streak never would. Conventional engines capture none of this. This paper proposes a personality x psyche decomposition to produce behavioral variability in chess play, drawing on patterns observed in human games. Personality is static -- a preset that pins down the engine's character. Psyche is dynamic -- a bounded scalar ψ_t \in [-100, +100], recomputed from five positional factors after every move. These two components feed into an audio-inspired signal chain (noise gate, compressor/expander, five-band equalizer, saturation limiter) that reshapes move probability distributions on the fly. The chain doesn't care what engine sits behind it: any system that outputs move probabilities will do. It needs no search and carries no state beyond ψ_t. I test the framework across 12,414 games against Maia2-1100, feeding it two probability sources that differ by ~2,800x in training data. Both show the same monotonic gradient in top-move agreement (~20-25 pp spread from stress to overconfidence), which tells us the behavioral variation comes from the signal chain, not from the model underneath. When the psyche runs overconfident, the chain mostly gets out of the way (66% agreement with vanilla Maia2). Under stress, the competitive score falls from 50.8% to 30.1%. The patterns are reminiscent of tilt and overconfidence as described in human play, but I should be upfront: this study includes no human-subject validation.