Move Ratings in Lucas Chess

If I'm playing as black and the top recommended move is +0.08 does that mean it's better for white? Sometimes the moves are like -5 and others +2, so I'm kind of confused. When the engline recommends I play a +2 move with black does that mean that the move is +2 for white, but just the least worst move available for black?

limber_up wrote:

If I'm playing as black and the top recommended move is +0.08 does that mean it's better for white? Sometimes the moves are like -5 and others +2, so I'm kind of confused. When the engline recommends I play a +2 move with black does that mean that the move is +2 for white, but just the least worst move available for black?

The numbers give position evaluations, not move ratings. If the position is rated +2 after your move for black, you are still losing. -5 would be good for black if the position was previously even. If black was previously up two queens, it wouldn't be a good move at all.

This is what I'm talking about. What do these numbers mean? Is it a a reevaluation of the position after each move? After 3. c4 (+0.18) e6 (+0.22)! Black has increased white's advantage yet it rates it as a good move.

White's 8th move was a mistake (that's why it receives a question mark) - before that, he had an advantage of "1.21 pawns" according to the computer (see black's 7th move) - and after it, he was actually down by twelve "centipawns" - which means, essentially, an equal position. 

Then black "returns the favor", on the same move eight, and plays a move which hands back to white a one-pawn advantage (or 0.97 pawns, to be "precise"). 

Centipawns mean very little to people, and are subject to ridicule by and large. Who can determine things with that level of accuracy, right?

But nobody laughs (except on rare cases) when the computer speaks about WHOLE pawns. Generally it knows what it's saying. 

And understanding WHY a computer eval went suddenly up or down - is far from simple - unless it's simply some dropped material or an approaching checkmate. 

The + values mean white is doing better. The - values mean black is doing better. 

People generally treat values higher than 1 (-1 or +1) as a huge, almost winning advantage for the player in question, and values higher than 1.5 or 2 as a "certain win" for that player. 

These estimates are probably right, by and large, for players rated 1900 and higher - and even there, there are many exceptions. Also world champion level players regularly fail to win certain types of +1.5 positions (as a rule, when the position is complicated and the +1.5 evaluation depends on seeing some tactic, or in finding your way through enormous complications).

But they are "supposed" to win them. 

A 1650 player should be "expected" to win a +3 position - that's where he's comfortably up a piece - but the 1650 player doesn't always manage to do this. Especially if the opposition is rated much higher...

Someone rated lower than 1500, for example - should just relax, enjoy the game, and try to gradually understand its mysteries...

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity guys, that was bugging me for a while.

So now you know :-)

I do indeed. Thanks for your detailed answer solskytz, you went above and beyond the call of duty! Danke!

:-) always happy to help. 

I think I can live with that. 

I have twice reported you for abuse to chess.com - but it seems that you now post with more moderation than you did in your first couple of days on this website - so all is well for the moment. 

It's not that I had anything against you, please understand. 

It's just that I'm a more or less regular user of this website - and I try to help keep it a pleasant environment. 

When someone (generally someone new) comes and starts treating people with obvious disrespect, or starts rude threads, at some point I take action. 

Generally, if that person comes to his senses, realizes the type of environment he's in, and is thereafter more civilized in his ways - that's fine. That's the usual case actually. 

Thank you, not-so-silent arbiter of the forums, for privileging us with your wisdom.

You're welcome, your weak attempt at sarcasm notwithstanding. 

<Dauber_wins> :-) !!!

Lol. English is my second language - but I do believe that "notwithstanding" is also legitimate at the end of the sentence, your objection notwithstanding. 

Or am I in the wrong? :-)

I never said that you were wrong, my excellent sir, I merely said that I thought you meant to put it in the front. 

It is indeed grammatically correct to put it at the end of a sentence, good sir.

I happen to be a professional translator, and translate quite a lot into English as well, so your comment does interest me. 

Now, check this out. Wordreference, and especially the Forums, is a resource which I use a lot. I translate from French, Italian and Spanish, so you immediately see why this multilingual website would be very helpful

http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/notwithstanding.1583416/

To sum up - they say here that you can use the word in either the beginning or the end. 

They also say that it's mostly used in legal or academic contexts, and that in "legalese" it regularly appears in the end of a sentence...

The shoe seems to fit. Indeed, one of my specialties is legal translation - so I'm very used to this word appearing...

You're funny, but you actually sound a bit "high"... :-) !!!!