Although I sometimes do it, it never makes me feel comfortable. After all, some company paid a lot of money to have their name attached to some historical chess event. Companies like that need to see that they made their mark on history, or they won't do it again, and we all want them to keep doing it. So we do our small part by calling things "Tata Steel" instead of simply "Wijk aan Zee" and so forth.

I know: it's not our solemn duty nor legal obligation—but it does convey a bit more information, so humanitarian considerations aside, it's only a feature.

Y Zherebukh vs W So, 2018 [analysis]

When presenting an alternative line with the claim <"better is" ...> you give the eval of the alternative, but not the actual played move.

Consider this analysis taken from your example Y Zherebukh vs W So, 2018 [analysis]

16. Ne2 Rfd8 <better is 16...Nh5 17.bxc5 bxc5 18.g4 Nhf6 19.Rb3 Ng8 20.g5 h5 = 0.00 (24 ply)> 17.Ng3 <= +0.50 (23 ply) after 17.Qe1 Kg8 18.Bc2 Bc6 19.bxc5 dxc5 20.Bf4 Qa7 21.a4 g5> 17...Ba8 18.a3

The first note shows that 16...Rfd8 was an inaccuracy, as 16...Nh5 could have equalized. The next note <+0.50 (23 ply) after 17.Qe1 etc.> means that 17.Ng3 was not Stockfish's #1 pick; the top move was 17.Qe1 evaluated at 0.50.

But White didn't play 17.Qe1 (he played 17.Ng3) so it's a fair question to pose: "how much worse is 17.Ng3 than 17.Qe1?"

Just by reading the analysis, we don't know. But we know this much: if the difference between 17.Qe1 and 17.Ng3 was significant you would see a "?" (or at least "better is") after 17.Qe1, followed by a variation and an evaluation, and then another evaluation at the next ply. So the fact you do not see such comments means that 17.Ng3 was regarded as roughly equal to 17.Qe1.

Still, enquiring minds may want to know, so thankfully the computed analysis was not thrown away. At any position you can click the "ENGINE" link and see the eval which our software decided was not important enough to include in the notes. So in this example you can take the position immediately after 17.Ng3, click on "ENGINE", and see the eval. Now you can make the comparison you were asking for. You won't even need to spend time or fuel; the analysis should already be cached and waiting for you.

(5 sec/move quick runthrough.)

<3.Nd1?! ⩱
Stockfish 9 64 POPCNT: 7:-0.51
( 8.Nf3 6:+0.12 8...O-O 9.Rg1 c5 10.O-O-O cxd4 11.Qxd4 = ) >

See? The two evals are also side-by-side allowing a quantitative assessment at a glance.

User: annie

User: kkk

User: Not

User: Chop

User: LIV

<User: OhioChessFan> User: friedliver ?>

User: you

User: all

User: trip

User: pin

User: wink

Sorry for the delayed response OCF.

That's the kind of thing that could be done if there really was a demand for it, but I fear a lot of people would not be able to use it properly or it might just serve to confuse.

Let's think of use cases, and things that it wouldn't be used for.

I can imagine somebody wanting to find out how the Byrne brothers performed as a pair. That might be interesting, but you'd have to be very careful that you don't mix in other people happened to be named Byrne. And needless to say, there are many. So you'd have to end up going to their individual pages anyhow.

I can imagine somebody conducting a study to compare the performances of groups of players with the same last name. Who would win among all the Ivanovs, Wangs, and Smiths? That's a pretty fringe case, and I think if people were really interested the easiest way would be for me to conduct the study and publish the results, perhaps updating it every 3 months or so.

I can't imagine anybody wanting to know how Garry Kasparov and Sergey Kasparov perform when their results are combined. I could, however, imagine somebody performing that search and think that they are only searching for Garry.