Well, the parse is wrong. In linguistic terms this is a case of "over-generation": the parser has proposed an interpretation that's not "licensed" by the langu

Well, the parse is wrong. In linguistic terms this is a case of "over-generation": the parser has proposed an interpretation that's not "licensed" by the language in general. (In contrast, consider a sentence like "I shot an elephant in my trousers." A reading like "An elephant in my trousers was shot" is licensed but unlikely.) To see the point of error, step through the parser until the focus is on "win", with 4 words on the stack. (Deep linking into particular states will come in a future version. For now, just press forward...). At that state, the parser should attach "we might win" to "good", as a reduced relative clause. Instead it opts to pop "good" from the stack. It then ends up in a bad situation, and essentially attaches to "make" as a way to concede defeat on the arc, and get on with the rest of the sentence. The parser actually could generate any projective tree over its input. It's only constrained by its statistics. On the benchmark evaluations this tends to perform better. I'm interested in trying out ways to incorporate syntactic restrictions, particularly for verb valencies, into the parser.