MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046774921 · doi:10.1177/154193120204600323

A Graph Theoretic Model of Human Cognition in Chess

2002· article· en· W2046774921 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine M. Burns, Marko Dodig

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer chessComputer scienceGraphArtificial intelligenceCognitionSearch engineSelection (genetic algorithm)Order (exchange)Combinatorial game theoryMachine learningHuman–computer interactionTheoretical computer scienceCognitive scienceGame theorySequential gameInformation retrievalPsychologyMathematicsMathematical economicsAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although advances in computing power have greatly improved computer chess playing, human chess players still rival their computer counter-parts. Computer algorithms typically use a strategy of exhaustive search, which is unlikely to be used by human players. We hypothesized that human chess players recognize higher order properties of the game and use these properties to limit their need for exhaustive move searching. We used graph theoretic modeling to quantitatively determine three possible higher order properties. We then conducted an experiment by using the higher order properties to preselect moves for a typical exhaustive search chess engine. We played the enhanced chess engine against its unenhanced version in six games. The enhanced version won all six games, regardless of color played, suggesting that pre-selection of moves based on higher order properties of the game is indeed a viable strategy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207