https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_chess
It will be interesting to compare how Alpha Zero learns with the Indian chess rules.
Does this add much variation to the game or does it slightly delay getting into the same positions we already know? Not castling is interesting though but would change the game quite dramatically, perhaps even making it slightly more predictable? I'm unsure. Interesting concepts.
I find chess very frustrating because I can analyze positions but almost always get thwarted because of misreading tempo. But honestly maybe I don't have a high enough IQ to play chess.
Perhaps just try counting the moves, and look for counters at each step? Most pro chess players think in patterns anyways, subset of moves that obtain a predefined position on the board. Then the game is more about rock, paper, scissors, where you try to guess the opponent’s pattern and employ a counter-pattern.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2019-vaci.pdf
> most “achievements” linked to IQ are measured in circular stuff s.a. bureaucratic or academic success, things for test takers and salary earners in structured jobs that resemble the tests
This is the point of the test. That people who do well on this test, do well at their job.
>Psychologists do not realize that the effect of IQ (if any, ignoring circularity) is smaller than the difference between IQ tests for the same individual.
This is actually evidence that IQ tests are measuring something that is even more predictive. Say I use an MRI and I'm able to predict schizophrenia far better than chance. The argument that the MRI I used was faulty and sometimes returned back false results is not evidence that my test is bogus, but evidence that it's even more powerful because it worked well despite the machine being wonky.
> if you want to detect how someone fares at a task, say loan sharking, tennis playing, or random matrix theory, make him/her do that task; we don’t need theoretical exams for a real world function by probability-challenged psychologists
This is referencing industrial psychology research. What he's referring to is a work-sample test, and IQ tests are equally predictive. With IQ tests outperforming when the jobs requirements are less defined, and work sample tests outperforming when the job is more defined.(think startup wear many hats lot of on the job learning vs enterprise DBA)
He also makes an argument that iq is less predictive of success at higher levels which isn't the case and is based on some bad research. (They measured childhood IQs instead of adult IQs)
Most of the article is a collection of strawmen, ad hominems, and just plain weird whatboutism. (just because the high IQ janitors score better than low IQ professors doesn't really tell us whether or not IQ is pseudo scientific)
Heh, I've been called crazy by chess players for saying that out loud. Glad I'm not the only one.
I also think basketball/handball tactics are a lot like checkers.
(I'm from Bangladesh)