# Computer Chess Club Archives

## Messages

### Subject: Re: likelihood instead of pawnunits? + chess knowledge

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 11:29:59 10/25/02

Go up one level in this thread

```On October 25, 2002 at 13:11:44, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On October 25, 2002 at 12:39:38, Ingo Lindam wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I repost my former post under this new title just hoping to encourage
>>more people to join the discussion:
>>
>>I am new at the Computer-Chess Club and would like to discuss some
>>suggestions for (a new generation of) chess knowledge using (and
>>generating?) chess engines. During my time at the university and at my
>>first job after making my exams in computer science I was involved in
>>statistical speech/pattern recognition and machine translation. That
>>might atleast a reason for some of my ideas.
>>
>>I am not sure whether these suggestions have never been made or just
>>named to be impossible to implement. (I am sure they are not.)
>>
>>I would really like to see the computers measure a position rather in a
>>set of probabilities e.g. (P+,P=), where
>
>
>I think that if you look at what chess programs do, this is the essence of the
>evaluation.  The larger the number, the greater the probability that side will
>win.  The smaller the number, the greater the probability that side will lose.
>Scores near zero imply draw, of course...

Not exactly.

You can translate pawn to expected result but not to probabilities.

The expected result is the same in the following 2 cases:
probability 1% win for white and 98% draw
probability 40% win for white and 20% draw.

The probabilities are not the same.

Uri

```