Blog
Notes from the research programme: what was tried, what was measured, what failed.
Where a number comes from
On 27 September 2026 a Coherent Chess report was withdrawn and recomputed: one of its figures came from a planning estimate in a configuration file, not from a measurement.
One measuring machine, one queue
Every keep-or-discard decision for the engine ends at a single computer. Its register shows where candidates fail, how long tests run, and why the queue behind it is shaped by spread, not by load.
Coherent 0.1.112: 3394 ± 52 over 8 anchors
Project measurement, not in the register. After 3,600 games against 8 foreign engines Coherent 0.1.112 stands at 3394 ± 52 (anchored to CCRL Computer Chess Rating Lists, a public ranking of chess engines from games under standard conditions. blitz ratings) and replaces 0.1.110 at 3356 ± 53 as the published figure; over the five shared anchors the measured gain is +41 ± 14.
Coherent 0.1.110: 3356 ± 53 over five anchors
Project measurement, not in the register. After 1,800 games against five foreign engines Coherent 0.1.110 stands at 3356 ± 53 (anchored to CCRL blitz ratings) and replaces 0.1.109 at 3326 ± 53 as the published figure; over the four shared anchors the measured gain is +36 ± 15.
Coherent 0.1.109: 3326 ± 53 over four anchors
Project measurement, not in the register. After 1,800 games against four foreign engines Coherent 0.1.109 stands at 3326 ± 53 (anchored to CCRL blitz ratings) and replaces 0.1.108 at 3274 ± 55 as the published figure; no anchor is shared with 0.1.108, so the step is not a measured gain.
Coherent 0.1.108: 3274 ± 55 over five anchors
Project measurement, not in the register. After 1,800 games against five foreign engines Coherent 0.1.108 stands at 3274 ± 55 (anchored to CCRL blitz ratings) and replaces 0.1.107 at 3282 ± 55 as the published figure; over the five shared anchors the measured gain is −12 ± 23.
Coherent 0.1.107: 3282 ± 55 over five anchors
Project measurement, not in the register. After 1,800 games against five foreign engines Coherent 0.1.107 stands at 3282 ± 55 (anchored to CCRL blitz ratings) and replaces 0.1.105 at 3129 ± 54 as the published figure; over the five shared anchors the measured gain is +158 ± 22.
Coherent 0.1.105: 3129 ± 54 over five anchors
Project measurement, not in the register. After 1,800 games against five foreign engines Coherent 0.1.105 stands at 3129 ± 54 (anchored to CCRL blitz ratings) and replaces 0.1.100 at 2989 ± 58 as the published figure; over the one shared anchor the measured gain is +139 ± 47.
Coherent 0.1.100: 2989 ± 58 over three anchors
Project measurement, not in the register. After 720 games against three foreign engines Coherent 0.1.100 stands at 2989 ± 58 (anchored to CCRL blitz ratings) and replaces 0.1.93 at 2891 ± 59 as the published figure; over the two shared anchors the measured gain is +69 ± 45.
From PDF to Interactive Pattern: Pattern-Converter Interim Report
Twelve days developing a converter that turns printed knitting and crochet patterns into interactive, source-bound instructions: approach, collection, reach across 93 development and 26 unseen documents, and what is explicitly not yet proven.
Coherent 0.1.93: 2891 — and a number that did not move
Project measurement, not in the register. After 720 games against three foreign engines Coherent 0.1.93 stands at 2891 ± 59 and replaces 0.1.62 as the published figure. The news is the standstill since 0.1.91, a wider spread of the anchors and a resolved arithmetic dispute.
30 games, no loss — and a band of ± 170
Project measurement, not in the register. A mini tournament of 30 games puts Coherent 0.1.92 against its predecessor. The result is clear, the number behind it is not — two openings, no colour-swapped pairs, and an error band five times as wide as the anchoring's.
Coherent 0.1.91: +276 Elo, measured and not certified
Project measurement, not in the register. Against the same three foreign engines as in September, Coherent 0.1.91 measures a gain of 276 ± 45 Elo Strength difference to the opponent, estimated from the games, with a 95-percent half-width where the oracle reported one. Never an absolute rating. over 0.1.62. The number stands; the path to it carries three limitations, and the measuring side reported every one of them itself.
Coherent 0.1.62 on three anchors, and the subtraction that says nothing
Project measurement, not in the register. After 720 games against 3 rated foreign engines, Coherent 0.1.62 stands at 2608 ± 56. The difference to the previous figure of 2570 is still not a measured gain, and the published band is a judgement, not a calculation.
Two anchors, one point apart: Coherent 0.1.61 at 2570 ± 55
Project measurement, not in the register. Coherent 0.1.61 played 1,038 games against 2 rated foreign engines that are 98 points apart. The 2 answers differ by one point. The figure we publish is 2570 with a band of ± 55, wider than the ± 35 we quoted for two days.
Right numbers, wrong pattern
First documented error examples from the e-Pattern Compiler, and why a correct stitch count proves less than it seems.
- Programme
One site for the lab
The chess project's posts, register and method pages have moved from their own host into this site. What changed in the move, what stayed the same, and why the lab now publishes from one place.
Playing strength: a transfer from foreign ratings, and IMS
A transfer from foreign ratings, followed by IMS Internally measured strength: 2200 plus the Elo difference against a frozen reference configuration of our own. A progress measure between our versions, not a rating from a ranking list. as a measure of progress between our own versions.
Two foreign yardsticks, two different answers
Project measurement, not in the register. Coherent 0.1.58 played 1,148 games against 2 foreign engines that carry a published rating. The two anchors disagree by 54 points. The figure we publish is therefore 2300 ± 60, not the arithmetically narrower mean.
A commissioned assessment of architecture and productivity
A commissioned qualitative assessment dated 6 September 2026 judges the Coherent Chess architecture very good and finds excellent overall productivity not yet sufficiently evidenced. It is not a measurement and not a playing-strength judgment.