visayanbraindoctor: <Bridgeburner:> PART 5
<Note> The fluctuations generated in the relatively low (16 minimum) ply forward slide were smoothed out in the equivalent return slide. The corrected evaluations extracted from the return slide are used in this analysis, as they are considered more reliable than the raw evaluations generated on the initial forward slide. All moves, including the starting position have been evaluated on forward and return slide for completeness.
- Between <-0.73/-0.74> applying to the move group <12.Bb3 Ba6 13.Na4 Qd4 14.Qxd4 Bxd4 15.c4>, representing a significant but not necessarily a winning advantage for Black and
<0.91> in respect of the move group<32…Bd3+ 33.Kd1 fxg3 34.fxg3 Ng6> representing a significant but not necessarily winning advantage for White.
<The largest evaluation shift>:
- for White was <0.77> between <34…Ng6> (< 0.91>) and <35.Rd5> (<=-0.24>), coming extremely close to the evaluation shift representing a bad move. <35.Rf7> was the engine’s preference for preserving White’s advantage.
- for Black was <0.93> between <22.Rxc6> and <22…Bb7>, inside the range of an evaluation shift representing a bad move. <22…Bb5> was the engine’s and Capablanca’s preference for preserving Black’s advantage.
• 97.9% of the ply in this game (94/96) coincided with engine preferences 1, 2 or 3
• The two ply that didn’t coincide with engine recommendations 1, 2 or 3 were <9.e6> and <11.Bf4>
• 81.25% of the ply in the game (78/96) coincided with engine preferences 1 or 2
• 75% of the ply in the game (72/96) coincided with the engine’s first preference
• 95.8% of Schlechter moves coincided with the engine preferences 1, 2 and 3
• 100% of Lasker’s moves coincided engine preferences 1, 2 and 3
• 83.3% of Schlechter’s moves (40/48) coincided with engine preferences 1 and 2
• 79.2% of Lasker’s moves (38/48) coincided with engine preferences 1 and 2
• 75% or 36/48 of Schlechter’s moves coincided with the engine’s first preference
• 75% or 36/48 of Lasker’s moves coincided with the engines first preference.
Perhaps some serious questions should be asked about how these players had played such a high percentage of computer recommended moves!
<The engine evaluation of the final position>:
was <=0.19>, in a position agreed drawn.
This was an exciting game played with extraordinary precision by both players. The slight “inaccuracies” defined the volatility of the game…perhaps they could be simply interpreted as strategic decisions.
Neither player blundered and only Lasker made a move that met the project definition of a <bad move>, namely <22…Bb7>.
Schlechter played one move <35.Rd5>, that was very close to being a defined bad move.
<Within the parameters of the project, the game is weighted at 1, representing 1 bad move and 0 blunders by Lasker, and 0 bad moves and 0 blunders by Schlechter.>
I was tempted by Schlechter’s <35.Rd5> to introduce the notion of a <dubious move> into the project method, defining it as producing an evaluation shift of between 0.60 and 0.79, and weighting it as 0.5. However, I decided against as it raises too many issues of method to deal with simply.