Recent question:

> http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/17192/how-are-the-scores-decided-in-chess

It has been argued that PV scores for Stockfish (the engine being used by chess.com) can be interpreted as something like:

> +1.0 is a pawn advantage for White. -0.5 is a half-pawn advantage for Black. 

**Is that correct?** The weights and parameters in Stockfish are either manually calibrated or tuned by something like the [SPSA optimiser][1].  

The objective function is to maximise the playing strength. Maximising playing strength has nothing to do with making sure "+1.0 is a pawn advantage for White". In fact, we should be able to **scale** all all the PV scores by a constant. As long as the engine makes the same move, the **magnitude** of the scores shouldn't matter.

This is consistent to the minimax algorithm, where both players only care how to minimize/maximise the evaluation. Again, there is **no efforts** to make the PV scores human-interpretable.

To me, the PV scores are only important relatively, not absolutely. For instance, we should be able to say "+2.0 is about two-times advantage for White than a position with +1.0 for White.", but that shouldn't have anything to do with pawns.

Q: Should I call all answers in the question **technically** incorrect.



  [1]: https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/SPSA