3 ms·

I don't like the idea of computer evaluation at all. The measure of whether one has a winning position should be winning.

• inopinatus 10y ago
  I agree but here's an anecdote. Chess tournaments have been decided by a third party. I recall the story of a match in Holland between two clubs, during which someone died of a heart attack. The clocks were stopped and never resumed; whether out of respect or distress (or both) the remaining participants did not want to continue the match, so the game positions were recorded, and a GM subsequently called in by the Dutch association to evaluate the positions and decide the result. (I suspect no violation of the FIDE laws of chess, which concern themselves primarily with the conduct and outcome of individual games and have little to say on the deciding of matches). Note also that computer evaluations of the strength of a position do not necessarily reflect the ability of a human being to play it. Not merely due to move depth and complexity (like when Stockfish comes back with a hilarious "mate in 24"), but also time: I recall moments in Carlsen vs Karjakin where the engines judged SK to hold a positional advantage despite mere seconds remaining on the clock.