AI-powered tiebreak mechanisms: An application to chess

In this paper, we propose that AI systems serve as a judge in the event of a draw in games such as chess and in the event of a tie in tournaments. More specifically, we introduce a family of AI-based scoring mechanisms and the concept of "tiebreak strategyproofness" in $n$-person zero-sum games. A mechanism is called tiebreak strategyproof (TSP) if it is always in the best interest of every player to choose the "best" action according to a given AI system. As such, we introduce a practicable scoring mechanism in chess and show that it is TSP, i.e., it is never in the interest of a player to deliberately play a worse move to increase their advantage in case the game goes to the tiebreak. In other words, TSP mechanisms are immune to such strategic manipulations. We also show that the current "speed-chess" tiebreaks are not TSP or immune to manipulation with an example from 2018 world chess championship between Carlsen and Caruana.

Political economy of superhuman AI

In this note, I study the institutions and game theoretic assumptions that would prevent the emergence of "superhuman-level" arfiticial general intelligence, denoted by AI*. These assumptions are (i) the "Freedom of the Mind," (ii) open source "access" to AI*, and (iii) rationality of the representative human agent, who competes against AI*. I prove that under these three assumptions it is impossible that an AI* exists. This result gives rise to two immediate recommendations for public policy. First, "cloning" digitally the human brain should be strictly regulated, and hypothetical AI*'s access to brain should be prohibited. Second, AI* research should be made widely, if not publicly, accessible.

Fairer Chess: A Reversal of Two Opening Moves in Chess Creates Balance Between White and Black

Unlike tic-tac-toe or checkers, in which optimal play leads to a draw, it is not known whether optimal play in chess ends in a win for White, a win for Black, or a draw. But after White moves first in chess, if Black has a double move followed by a double move of White and then alternating play, play is more balanced because White does not always tie or lead in moves. Symbolically, Balanced Alternation gives the following move sequence: After White's (W) initial move, first Black (B) and then White each have two moves in a row (BBWW), followed by the alternating sequence, beginning with W, which altogether can be written as WB/BW/WB/WB/WB... (the slashes separate alternating pairs of moves). Except for reversal of the 3rd and 4th moves from WB to BW, this is the standard chess sequence. Because Balanced Alternation lies between the standard sequence, which favors White, and a comparable sequence that favors Black, it is highly likely to produce a draw with optimal play, rendering chess fairer. This conclusion is supported by a computer analysis of chess openings and how they would play out under Balanced Alternation.