4 ms·
That’s reasonable, but the question we really want to know is how difficult it will be to equalize, which is a measure of both the number of equalizing moves an
by janalsncm 2y ago
That’s reasonable, but the question we really want to know is how difficult it will be to equalize, which is a measure of both the number of equalizing moves and how difficult it is to find them. If the only moves are obvious, it’s not as bad as you might originally think.
In other words the correct calculation of subjective difficulty is a dot product, not simply a count of the number of equalizing moves.
- mlyle 2y agoYah, I'm not saying that a way to figure out the "difficulty of position" is to simply count the number of "only moves" or a volatility measure. There's sometimes a sequence of obvious trades to make, and that's hardly a difficult position. It's hard to capture "obvious". One metric is how far you need to look down the eval tree to know a move is good, but even that is flawed.
- janalsncm 2y agoYes, it would be hard to avoid stepping into the scope of psychology to truly answer the question, because what might be easy for you might not be for me, even if we had equal elo ratings. (Trivial example, we might have equal elos but I try out a new opening you normally play.) You can probably learn a function to give a reasonable estimate though.
- mlyle 2y agoI prefer something kind of objective rather than looking at player strengths. The "depth needed to search to pick equal move" is my best answer, maybe revised to be "and isn't found with a couple of simple heuristics" to clean it up some.