Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: How many pawns is a positional blunder?

Author: Andrew Williams

Date: 09:18:09 01/17/02

Go up one level in this thread


On January 17, 2002 at 12:10:57, Odd Gunnar Malin wrote:

>On January 17, 2002 at 11:43:26, Andrew Williams wrote:
>
>>On January 17, 2002 at 11:19:39, Odd Gunnar Malin wrote:
>>
>>>On January 17, 2002 at 08:29:48, David Rasmussen wrote:
>>>
>>>>0.50 pawns? 0.30 pawns? 0.20 pawns?
>>>>
>>>>Specifically, when letting Crafty annotate a game, and you want to find what it
>>>>thinks is a positional blunder, what should be the margin?
>>>>
>>>>/David
>>>
>>>In books etc. use the move that change the score between += and = normaly be
>>>annotated as ?! (dubious move).
>>>
>>>In my first chess-program I own (Zarkov 2.6 by Stanback) he was giving this
>>>change a score of 0.2 pawn value. He gives the score between '+/-' and '=' to
>>>0.6. (+/- -> White is clearly better or White has the upper hand.)
>>>In normal language this change between +/= and = could be writen 'white stands
>>>slightly better' and 'even'.
>>>
>>>The use in Chess Assistant seems to be between 0.4-0.5 pawn value but they have
>>>added a definition between these two scores (+=/=). I haven't tested the CA
>>>score because I always use symbols when analysing to not be disturbed by the
>>>small decimal changes.
>>>
>>>
>>>Odd Gunnar
>>
>>That's interesting. In my program's "blunder check" mode, I annotate as
>>follows:
>>
>>Score drops by 0.60:  ??
>>Score drops by 0.40:   ?
>>Score drops by 0.20:  ?!
>
>I think this would be correct, maybe your score for ?? could be discussed. When
>I see a ?? there mostly is a combination for the opponent that lead to material
>loss.

Yeah. For me it's mainly a way of drawing attention to the fact that
my program perhaps could have spotted a problem earlier. I don't think
the ?? in my program really corresponds to the ?? by a real annotator.

>It is good that you not score !?, ! and !!. This move don't change the score. !
>and !! only change the score if the opponent don't find the right answer or this
>move was the only good move, often hard to find.
>The !? are often been translated to 'interesting' or 'a move deserving
>attention'. Another way to see it that I like more is as an equal game going
>from a possible draw to either of the player could win.
>

Yes. These sorts of annotations would require a *much* more complex approach
than the one I've taken.

Andrew



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.