Yep, agree with this. It was surprising to me to find out how large the error bars were in computer evaluations of their own games. In the last TCEC superfinal,

Yep, agree with this. It was surprising to me to find out how large the error bars were in computer evaluations of their own games. In the last TCEC superfinal, for example, the majority of the draws saw at least one position with an evaluation higher than +/-1.0, and 3 of the 26 decisive games came after a 0.0 evaluation. I assume that margin should be even bigger in human games, so it’s hard to see what there is to learn (outside some fun lines) from looking at these numbers outside of opening prep. As for the tablebase question, it would be nice to see win/forced-draw probabilities from engines instead of the increasingly artificial material evaluation.