0

I was asked to rephrase this question. Hope at least someone gets what I'm trying to mean here now.

A position can be equal but asymmetrical. If it is very sharp and complicated then at least humans cannot overlook all options and a win has gotten more likely. That one be one kind of factor to consider for constructing such a statistical measure.

Would simply the width of the engine's positional tree be a useful measure? Would there be any interest in such a measure?

The players' personal inclination to draw as a matter of life long habit, or their need to win a point where a draw would still be a title loss, could be adjusted for in quantifiable and rational ways, since it is a statistic I'm asking for here, not a miracle prediction for one particular game yet to be played.

Is there a list of what combinations of openings have ended in a draw at top level? Would that be of any interest when trying to predict the outcome of any game?

Can all such things which appear to be of meaning for predicting the outcome of games in general?

(I cant believe it is so very hard to explain with ever more words these obvious thoughts to people here who are supposed to be interested in Chess of all things).*

| improve this question | |
  • 1
    Can you clarify your question? You're post contains several questions which don't appear to be related. What does a player's score have to do with a computer's search tree, or if a position is sharp and complicated? – Herb Wolfe Oct 12 '17 at 22:10
  • 2
    There's an answer to the question for the engine part. However, "... what combinations of openings..." should be in a new question. It's not related. – SmallChess Oct 13 '17 at 0:47
  • 1
    Now you've added more questions. Please stick to one question per post. Also, consider taking the tour, and reading chess.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask – Herb Wolfe Oct 13 '17 at 21:13
  • 2
    @LocalFluff Please be nice to someone who is just trying to help. I can count five question marks in your question. Granted, they are related to each other, but IMHO "Is there a list of what combinations of openings have ended in a draw at top level?" should be a separate question, for example. You're free to disagree, of course, but I believe that separating questions increases your chances of getting answers for all of them. Even if they're related. They're not duplicates, so why don't ask two questions instead? (And put a link from one to the other) – Pedro A Oct 14 '17 at 13:05
  • 1
    @Hamsteriffic He is not helpful and he is not nice. He's a troll. Would've been much easier for him to answer or shut up. Or contributed to an answer of the part of the question that he is capable of understanding. But he prefers to troll instead. – LocalFluff Oct 14 '17 at 13:21
6

You have several questions which don't appear to be related. I'll answer you this one:

Q: If it is very sharp and complicated then at least humans cannot overlook all options and a win has gotten more likely. Would simply the width of the engine's positional tree be a useful measure?

Yes. There's a related concept known as positional complexity. Of course, the more complicated the position it is, the less likely it should end with a draw.

If you require technical explanation, please edit your question and I'll update my answer.

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.