lichess.org
Donate

Computer analysis is arrogant

Do you prefer the text:

"At an evaluation depth of 15 ply Stockfish judge Nc5 as 0.93 centipawns stronger than your move."

Wouldn't that be a little bit too complicated for a rough overview.

This is not that stockfish is arrogant, but rather looks that you can't take criticism and have self-esteem problems.

Create an instagram account, post a couple of your pictures doing ordinary stuff with a explanation of how ordinary stuff makes you unique. Share it with selected group of individuals who never criticize you either because they do not care or because they need you not to criticize them, collect some positive feedback/likes and enjoy your safe space.
#11 Stockfish is rarely judgmental; it simply searches and evaluates. The only "judgment" it makes is in announcing a mate in at most N lower bound (or mated in at most N upper bound).
#14 I don't understand. If stockfish says 0.93 it's some kind of judgement unless it is completely sure by calculations that the position exactly is 0.93 which it is n't because evaluations can change.

Also, Toadofsky, how do you get a value like 0.93 if not applying some algorithm for judging. Can you get a value like that by calculations?
mate in one is not a judgement. It's a fact that can be proved.
0.93 is a judgement.
0.93 is debug information printed during an incomplete (and sometimes forcibly halted due to time constraints or other constraints) search. It just happens that people sometimes find such debug information useful.
#18 So you mean the computers don't use this "debug information" to value the position in order to play when they are playing chess.
#19 If you insist that 0.93 is a conclusion, then succinctly define what 0.93 means. How can one test whether 0.93 is a correct conclusion (and that 0.92 and 0.94 are incorrect)?

Even the Stockfish developers disagree about what 0.00 means.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.