Scores from white's POV or from engine's POV?

[bob]

Which reminds me, I'm a bit disappointed that only programmers respond in this thread. It is not our opinions which count. I hope not everyone who has voted is a programmer.

What's to say? I prefer scores from white's perspective, but I already said that by voting. Reasons are kind of pointless since almost everyone has a preference and isn't likely to change it.

My complaint is that "because this has been the way most have done things and it is hard to get used to white's perspective scores..." is short-sighted. My first chess program used English Descriptive move input/output (P-K4, N-QB3, QN-K4, etc.) When it became apparent that Algebraic was going to be the way of the future, I converted both myself and my program. And it took a while to start to think in terms of E4 vs K4 and such. And then when I started to have Crafty kibitz analysis during serious human games on ICC, the confusion there about the scores led to my starting to use white POV scores rather then engine POV. It was annoying at first, although only when playing black. Today it doesn't cause me any confusion at all. I can look at the position and see who is better without even knowing which side is the computer...

[Dann Corbit]

The desktop version of my program includes a user preference for the sign of the engine's evaluations: The scores can be displayed either from white's point of view or from the engine's point of view. In the handheld version of my program, I hesitate to make this optional: The interface very easily becomes too cluttered on the tiny screen if there are too many options, and I try to act as if there were a small tax on every new option I introduce.

Therefore, I ask: What sign convention do you prefer for display of engine evaluations?

Tord

For EPD analysis, the PGN standard states that the analysis is from the engine's point of view.

For other analysis or play (e.g. game play) there is nothing stated in the standard that I know of to decide.

I suggest that it should be an option for both UCI and Winboard engines.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Viewing the engine as a virtual player, it seems right to have it's score from it's own view, helps add personality.

For analysis you'd probably prefer the white black thing. So perhaps you could go on that, depending if it will be used most for play or analysis.

Stan

Exactly my thoughts

[Dirt]

My complaint is that "because this has been the way most have done things and it is hard to get used to white's perspective scores..." is short-sighted. My first chess program used English Descriptive move input/output (P-K4, N-QB3, QN-K4, etc.) When it became apparent that Algebraic was going to be the way of the future, I converted both myself and my program. And it took a while to start to think in terms of E4 vs K4 and such. And then when I started to have Crafty kibitz analysis during serious human games on ICC, the confusion there about the scores led to my starting to use white POV scores rather then engine POV. It was annoying at first, although only when playing black. Today it doesn't cause me any confusion at all. I can look at the position and see who is better without even knowing which side is the computer...

Crafty is where I first saw this done, and I thought the advantages were obvious enough that it would quickly become the standard. The poll shows that most of the users agree, especially since most of those expressing a contrary opinion in this thread seem to be chess programmers.

[bob]

My complaint is that "because this has been the way most have done things and it is hard to get used to white's perspective scores..." is short-sighted. My first chess program used English Descriptive move input/output (P-K4, N-QB3, QN-K4, etc.) When it became apparent that Algebraic was going to be the way of the future, I converted both myself and my program. And it took a while to start to think in terms of E4 vs K4 and such. And then when I started to have Crafty kibitz analysis during serious human games on ICC, the confusion there about the scores led to my starting to use white POV scores rather then engine POV. It was annoying at first, although only when playing black. Today it doesn't cause me any confusion at all. I can look at the position and see who is better without even knowing which side is the computer...

Crafty is where I first saw this done, and I thought the advantages were obvious enough that it would quickly become the standard. The poll shows that most of the users agree, especially since most of those expressing a contrary opinion in this thread seem to be chess programmers.

I've explained why I chose to be "different" way back when. On ICC (then ICS) and FICS (and others like EICS, etc) I would be asked to have Crafty give real-time analysis (analyze mode) when important games were being played between GMs. And the questions were continual "what does -1.5 mean?" (back then crafty was a "program POV" type score output. After a couple of months, I decided that the question was being repeated so often, and then when changing sides the sign would change as well, that it was time to try something a bit different. I made a very minor change to make the score from White's POV, and the questions dropped way off once everyone knew that +=good for white. Then as crafty changed side when in analysis mode, the score didn't suddenly change signs and lead to confusion. At first it was a bit problematic for _me_ as when I would log on to ICC and notice crafty was playing and tell it to "whisper", when it came up with a -2.5 score I would think it was losing. And then I would notice it was ahead, and then I remembered it was playing black, and then... But after a while, this became second-nature and doesn't faze me today...

[bob]

The desktop version of my program includes a user preference for the sign of the engine's evaluations: The scores can be displayed either from white's point of view or from the engine's point of view. In the handheld version of my program, I hesitate to make this optional: The interface very easily becomes too cluttered on the tiny screen if there are too many options, and I try to act as if there were a small tax on every new option I introduce.

Therefore, I ask: What sign convention do you prefer for display of engine evaluations?

Tord

For EPD analysis, the PGN standard states that the analysis is from the engine's point of view.

For other analysis or play (e.g. game play) there is nothing stated in the standard that I know of to decide.

I suggest that it should be an option for both UCI and Winboard engines.

And even that is a mistake, IMHO. Because to look at an EPD position, you have to display the diagram, then look to see who is on move, before looking at the score. With a WPOV program, you don't need to know who is on move to know who is winning or losing...

[Graham Banks]

My complaint is that "because this has been the way most have done things and it is hard to get used to white's perspective scores..." is short-sighted. My first chess program used English Descriptive move input/output (P-K4, N-QB3, QN-K4, etc.) When it became apparent that Algebraic was going to be the way of the future, I converted both myself and my program. And it took a while to start to think in terms of E4 vs K4 and such. And then when I started to have Crafty kibitz analysis during serious human games on ICC, the confusion there about the scores led to my starting to use white POV scores rather then engine POV. It was annoying at first, although only when playing black. Today it doesn't cause me any confusion at all. I can look at the position and see who is better without even knowing which side is the computer...

Crafty is where I first saw this done, and I thought the advantages were obvious enough that it would quickly become the standard. The poll shows that most of the users agree, especially since most of those expressing a contrary opinion in this thread seem to be chess programmers.

In my opinion, Bob did a good thing.

[Tord Romstad]

In my opinion, Bob did a good thing.

I still prefer scores from the engine's point of view, but because of the poll result so far, I have nevertheless decided to do the good thing.

I've switched to scores from white's point of view. The beta testers among you can download the new version (which also contains two important bug fixes and has a slightly prettier move list display compared to the previous version) from the usual place.

Tord

[Graham Banks]

I've switched to scores from white's point of view.

Tord

Keeping it as an option would suit everybody of course, but as you stated, that is not really feasible for you in this case

Cheers, Graham.

[Cubeman]

I like POV from White perspective.I have many PDA chess engines and have gotten used to that convention.It is good news that you intend to do this for the iphone as Chess Genius has left out a score option and just displays a main line.