On Apr 30, 11:52 am, David Richerby
wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
I am not convinced that scoring human GMs by how closely their play
resembles any particular named chess engine has merit. Perhaps
ranking them by percentage blunder rate might be meaningful though
(and well within the capability of any good chess engine). It is
surprising how effective blunder check can be even on GM level games
given sufficient time.

What do you mean by `percentage blunder rate'? The proportion of the
time that the GM plays a move that the engine thinks is, say, more
than one pawn worse than the best move?

That would probably do as a rough working definition. The search depth
or time might also need to be specified.

If a move is sufficiently far off the mark then the engine is probably
right to fault it. I reckon 100cp ought to be a wide enough window to
avoid too many false positives.

How does that make a
difference?

Unforced tactical errors play their part in the outcome of games. And
these are precisely the sorts of thing that computer chess engines are
very good at spotting. Subtle long term structural games are much
harder for them to score.

Regards,
Martin Brown