Comments on https://lichess.org/@/chessking1015056/blog/the-fascinating-world-of-antichess-a-game-of-strategy-and-sacrifice/RpJyEQIV
> This means thaters must be extra cautious to avoid accidentally winning the game by capturing the opponent's king.
is
"thaters" a typo of sort?
Good blog introduction to antichess. I only read this now. Having played a few ones.
Language AI opinion and questions (I might be wrong).
I think that if you used help from language AI, you might share that aspect and perhaps the degree of it. I did notice some formulations that rang some bells. But the structure of the text seems guided by a human, and putting to key points of contrast for incoming other variants' chess players curious about this variant. It makes sense to me, and is welcome reading; however, it was produced.
This, below, might not be readable to many, but are my thoughts nonetheless that popped out.
But for internet "metadata" extra information sake, knowing the AI contribution proportion would allow its influence in the internet culture sphere to not be as polluting as it would, in absence of such information (that could help modulate its further training influence). This is still only a language model, not the human language reality.
Such models have their own, still unresearched, big data mess and other obscure embedded biases as any model is bound to contain. If it were not so obscured, it could be further investigated through science.
It is not the existence of a bias that is a problem but its hiding, and lack of ability to use such tools in full user ability to reason. A model is not meant to be the truth of the reality it targets but and " If then" statement.
It only works or works best when assumptions is part of the statement. And being born of few humans minds, it is bound to have many of those not yet known, and in need to further deliberative scientific procession, call it reasearch.
End of technical rambling. This does not change the value of the blog as text object to read.