Author: Don Dailey
Date: 22:27:49 01/07/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 1998 at 23:26:37, Komputer Korner wrote: > KOMPUTER KORNER ANNOTATION TABLE > The following chart won't improve your chess but it will give you an >idea of what exactly is meant by the annotation symbols that GM's use. > Komputer Korner Annotation Table. >Eval symbol % score for white % of a pawn ahead No. of tempos >ahead >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >= or unclear/= 50 .00 0 >+/=/= or unclear 56 .16 0.5 >+/= 63 .33 1 >+/- 76 .67 2 >+ - 90 1.0 3 >+/-+/- >99 > 1.33 4 or more > > >The difference between the = sign and the unclear/= sign in row 1 is >that the unclear/= symbol represents a more dynamic position with much >more winning chances for both sides. In row 2, the unclear symbol means >the same thing as per the above with the exception that white has >slightly more winning chances than black. Unfortunately, Sahovski >Informator insists on using the =/unclear symbol for a material >inequality position where there is sufficient compensation. >Unfortunately that does not tell us whether there are lots of equal >winning chances or if the logical outcome should be a draw. In practice, >it has come to mean that the logical outcome is a draw which leaves a >hole in the symbol annotations because there is no generally accepted >symbol for the saying" both sides have equal chances". The unclear >symbol can't be used for this because it does not represent an equality >( See Axiom No. 3 of Komputer Korner's 10 Commandments of Opening >Theory). I propose that the =/unclear symbol be used in these cases. >This then differentiates between a dynamic equality where both sides >have equal chances to win, and the = symbol by itself which should mean >that a draw is the likely outcome. The interpretation used by Sahovski >Informator is thus misleading and not needed, because we already know >that there is a materiel inequality just by looking at the position. The >annotation symbols should restrict themselves to telling us who is >better and if the position is equal, is it because both sides have lots >of winning chances or is it because the position is a draw? > >-- >KK Thanks for sending the table. I once built a table from self play data that showed win expectancies from scores. I simply remembered each root node evaluation and graphed them all. It would be fun to do the same with Grandmaster games, just to see if the percentages come out the same, in other words does evaluating a position 1.0 pawn up exactly predict the win percentages the same from GM samples as from Cilkchess played games? If this came out significantly different it would be interesting to analyze why. A further extension is to do it with games played at various levels. Does +1.0 with 1k nodes search = +1.0 with 2k nodes searched when predicting win percentages? - Don
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.