<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>SentiMATE: Learning to play Chess through Natural Language Processing · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1907.08321/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1907.08321/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>SentiMATE: Learning to play Chess through Natural Language Processing — mentioned by cbutner</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28768037</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1907.08321:28768037</guid><pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2021 01:25:27 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;SentiMATE[1] looks at one of the reverse problems in a way - training an engine on commentary data - although it&amp;#x27;s not exactly what you&amp;#x27;re talking about. I think this line of thinking could eventually lead to automated metrics for commentary evaluation, which could in turn lead to better methods than top-k/top-p for turning a bunch of sequential logits into a sentence or paragraph - basically treat it like MCTS/PUCT also. The problem is that if you look at high-level commentary - maybe Radjabov-MVL on https://www.chess.com/news/view/2021-champions-chess-tour-fi... (I&amp;#x27;m not the best judge…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1907.08321/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LG</category></item><item><title>SentiMATE: Learning to play Chess through Natural Language Processing — mentioned by Deimorz</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20590172</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1907.08321:20590172</guid><pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2019 01:58:14 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s a neat idea, but saying that this AI &amp;quot;mastered&amp;quot; chess is a huge exaggeration. In the actual paper [1], it says that it lost 19/100 games against an opponent playing completely random moves. And by &amp;quot;lost&amp;quot;, they mean that it was in a worse position after 40 moves. It sounds like the AI isn&amp;#x27;t even able to consistently finish games, so they just had to try to judge them at that point. [1]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.08321v1.pdf&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1907.08321/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LG</category></item><item><title>SentiMATE: Learning to play Chess through Natural Language Processing — HN submission</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20500892</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:submission:1907.08321:20500892</guid><pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2019 18:37:06 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Deep Learning model learns to play Chess from text-based commentary&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. &lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1907.08321/"&gt;Paper and source history&lt;/a&gt;. A submission is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LG</category></item></channel></rss>
