20165 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I am familiar with two types of annotations that are used to evaluate a certain position. Computers tend to give a numeric assessment of who is ahead by how many 1/100s of a pawn. For example, a position may be evaluated as 2.75 meaning that white is ahead by 2 and 3/4 of a pawn. Some evaluations give informator symbols like = +- ect. to indicate who has some degree of winning advantage. My question is what is the correlation between the numberic and symbolic evaluation? Is there some type of grid or chart that would convert from one to the other? For example, if the position is evaluated as 1.33, does that convert to an equal, slight winning, clear winning etc. Thanks for any input.
Two things I know:
a) The Informator symbols have words that go with them. Like = is even; +/= is slight advantage, etc.
b) Fritz and other programs have actual break points that are equated with these symbols, though I can't remember what they are exactly without looking at the program running. So, for example, less than +0.32 might be =, from 0.33 to 0.72 might be +/=, +0.73 to some other number might be +/-, etc.
So, the answer is YES, but I don't have the numbers in front of me, and it's possible that each program (Fritz, Junior, Rybka) may actually use different values. I'd like to know the answer to this question, too.
I’m not sure there is a direct correlation. I just did a quick experiment with Rybka and came up with the following:
.60- up (+/-)
The evaluations engines give are based mostly on material. A GM’s experience may tell him that positional factors outweigh any material advantage. In fact top this is why top level CC players routinely beat players who rely on engines alone to select their moves. The top level players can direct the game into positions that engines do not evaluate correctly.
As far as individual engines go top level CC players recommend analyzing with at least 2 engines because of the difference in their evaluations. When I check out games with Chess Tiger it’s evaluations are often way more optimistic (or pessimistic) than Rybka’s.
I saw a book in which Lev Alburt recommended using a slightly modified system to evaluate a position. He listed 5.0 as being equal. At 5.5 for White vs. 4.5 for Black then White stands slightly better and at 6.5 to 3.5 White is clearly better, etc. His recommendation was laughable because unless you’re a GM you can’t evaluate the position accurately enough to make those kinds of numeric judgments. When I saw that crap it made me wonder about anything Alburt recommends.
Guess my rating
by leiph18 5 minutes ago
by flakco 6 minutes ago
3/29/2015 - Front And Center
by JackeJH 10 minutes ago
First person to win 1000 games against Comp1-EASY gets 1000 trophies!
by macer75 15 minutes ago
Podium Prediction Plus (PPP) - "US Chess Champs 2015"
by onthehouse 16 minutes ago
A "Fine" Miniature
by chess2Knights 19 minutes ago
I would NEVER have seen this. What level would?
by JackOfAllHobbies 19 minutes ago
Two Knights Defence Mainline Ideas for Black
by sloughterchess 20 minutes ago
by cool12576 20 minutes ago
by baddogno 29 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!