As I understand it, current positional assessments by computers evaluate a position based on optimal play by both players from this point.
i.e. a trap moves that bait an opponent into making a mistake (even a really subtle one!) have no additional value because the computer assesses the position on the assumption that the opponent doesn't make that mistake.
That seems reasonable; playing in the hope that the opponent makes bad moves isn't strong tactical play.
But I assume that means that the converse is also true:
If I have a single winning line full of incredibly obscure counter-intuitive moves, that only a GM would have any hope of finding, and any deviation from that line leads to the whole thing immediately collapsing ... then that position is evaluated as winning.
Are there any evaluation programs/frameworks that attempt to account for that "you're ahead but only if you make a series of very specific moves" concept? Essentially "you're ahead, but you've made the position very unstable, and thus hard to play".