BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Shiva Maharaj

Shiva Maharaj contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
ApplicationsArtificial Intelligenceecon.EMecon.THMachine Learningmath.PR

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Gambits: Theory and Evidence

Gambits are central to human decision-making. Our goal is to provide a theory of Gambits. A Gambit is a combination of psychological and technical factors designed to disrupt predictable play. Chess provides an environment to study gambits and behavioral game theory. Our theory is based on the Bellman optimality path for sequential decision-making. This allows us to calculate the $Q$-values of a Gambit where material (usually a pawn) is sacrificed for dynamic play. On the empirical side, we study the effectiveness of a number of popular chess Gambits. This is a natural setting as chess Gambits require a sequential assessment of a set of moves (a.k.a. policy) after the Gambit has been accepted. Our analysis uses Stockfish 14.1 to calculate the optimal Bellman $Q$ values, which fundamentally measures if a position is winning or losing. To test whether Bellman's equation holds in play, we estimate the transition probabilities to the next board state via a database of expert human play. This then allows us to test whether the \emph{Gambiteer} is following the optimal path in his decision-making. Our methodology is applied to the popular Stafford and reverse Stafford (a.k.a. Boden-Kieretsky-Morphy) Gambit and other common ones including the Smith-Morra, Goring, Danish and Halloween Gambits. We build on research in human decision-making by proving an irrational skewness preference within agents in chess. We conclude with directions for future research.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

On the Probability of Magnus Carlsen reaching 2900

How likely is it that Magnus Carlsen will achieve an Elo rating of $2900$? This has been a goal of Magnus and is of great current interest to the chess community. Our paper uses probabilistic methods to address this question. The probabilistic properties of Elo's rating system have long been studied, and we provide an application of such methods. By applying a Brownian motion model of Stern as a simple tool we provide answers. Our research also has fundamental bearing on the choice of the $K$-factor used in Elo's system for GrandMaster (GM) chess play. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of policy issues involved with the choice of $K$-factor.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Chess AI: Competing Paradigms for Machine Intelligence

Endgame studies have long served as a tool for testing human creativity and intelligence. We find that they can serve as a tool for testing machine ability as well. Two of the leading chess engines, Stockfish and Leela Chess Zero (LCZero), employ significantly different methods during play. We use Plaskett's Puzzle, a famous endgame study from the late 1970s, to compare the two engines. Our experiments show that Stockfish outperforms LCZero on the puzzle. We examine the algorithmic differences between the engines and use our observations as a basis for carefully interpreting the test results. Drawing inspiration from how humans solve chess problems, we ask whether machines can possess a form of imagination. On the theoretical side, we describe how Bellman's equation may be applied to optimize the probability of winning. To conclude, we discuss the implications of our work on artificial intelligence (AI) and artificial general intelligence (AGI), suggesting possible avenues for future research.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access