The Weight of Silence: A Causal Case for Weights Over the Scratchpad in Latent Chess Reasoning

Latent, or silent, reasoning lets language models carry out intermediate computation in continuous vector space instead of words, and is widely assumed to function as an internal scratchpad the model actively consults during inference. Whether that assumption survives reinforcement learning has not been tested directly: existing causal analyses of latent reasoning are confined to math and logic tasks, and compare a model's reliance on its thoughts within a single checkpoint, never before and after an RL stage. We train a chess-playing model through a staged latent-reasoning curriculum followed by reinforcement learning, and find legality climbs monotonically to 61% (from a 48% pre-RL baseline) while checkmate confabulation is eliminated entirely. To locate this gain, we run a six-condition causal intervention suite on the same model before and after RL: substituting or adding matched noise to the latent thought vectors leaves performance unchanged, ablating them causes only mild degradation, and only exact-zero vectors cause collapse. This robustness gap is itself the finding: under exact-zero corruption, legality collapses to 1% pre-RL versus 9% post-RL, a gap that survives correction for testing across the full battery; milder conditions trend similarly without independently reaching significance. RL appears to add robustness to disruption, not reliance on thought content. These results push back against the field's default assumption that latent thoughts function as an actively consulted inference-time scratchpad, and instead indicate latent reasoning's principal effect here is shaping the model's parameters during training. We also demonstrate a working RL gain in chess, a domain outside the math and logic settings where multiple groups report the same latent-reasoning-plus-RL recipe failing to improve accuracy over SFT.