Notation Help Needed

In chess notation, what do the decimal numbers mentioned after a move mean?

For example 5. Bf4 (0.24) O-O (0.27).

What do the 0.24 and 0.27 mean?

Originally posted by Jakal
In chess notation, what do the decimal numbers mentioned after a move mean?

For example 5. Bf4 (0.24) O-O (0.27).

What do the 0.24 and 0.27 mean?

these are chess engine evaluations of the percentage of a pawn that the silicon beast
thinks that there is an advantage/disadvantage in the position, thus 0.24 is 0.24 of a
pawn, a pawn being the unit of measurement in chess. This essentially means that the
position is equal, 0.24 of a pawn being meaningless.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
these are chess engine evaluations of the percentage of a pawn that the silicon beast
thinks that there is an advantage/disadvantage in the position, thus 0.24 is 0.24 of a
pawn, a pawn being the unit of measurement in chess. This essentially means that the
position is equal, 0.24 of a pawn being meaningless.

You don't think a quarter pawn is a lot of pawn?

Typical of Robbie the Robot to think the lad is using a computer.

The OP is reading something called a chess book

The numbers in brackets will be the current times on the clock.
Giving you an indication of how long a player thinks over certain moves.

On here you can see the times in between games and see that some
players have taken no more than 5 secs on a move.
I just looked at one players games.
4 games and the time given for the last move on each one was 12 14:31
all the moves in those 4 games were played in the same minute.
That explains some of the amazing blunders one sees on RHP.

OTB (over the board) some players have been advised to record the
time taken after each move.
They can then see where they are investing their time.

Never done it myself but it does sound like good advice to a player who is
often in time trouble.

You can see what part of the game or certain positions you may be
having trouble with, where you had the longest think etc.. and where your
time trouble is coming from.

OTB Time trouble is when players waste so much time analysing postions
they leave themselves about 3-4 minutes for the last 5 or 6 moves and often
make a bad blunder.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
these are chess engine evaluations of the percentage of a pawn that the silicon beast
thinks that there is an advantage/disadvantage in the position, thus 0.24 is 0.24 of a
pawn, a pawn being the unit of measurement in chess. This essentially means that the
position is equal, 0.24 of a pawn being meaningless.

Thanks R.C.

So the higher the number, the more significant the advantage.

Does a negative mean that black has the advantage?

Ahhhh Boggles - I was wrong.

I was fooled by:

"....decimal numbers mentioned after a move."

Books 'mention' - computers 'display'.

Jakal turn that thing off it will only confuse you.
Read a chess book.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
You don't think a quarter pawn is a lot of pawn?

a quarter of a pawn is unintelligible to humans, either the pawns are on the board or
they are off the board and as much as i would like to get my axe and chop them up
and torch them in a ritualistic funeral pyre after the fashion of Jimi Hendrix who
torched his guitar at the Monterey Pop festival, i realise that it would prove to be a
futile exercise although it may bring at least temporary relief.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Ahhhh Boggles - I was wrong.

I was fooled by:

"....decimal numbers [b]mentioned after a move."

Books 'mention' - computers 'display'.

Jakal turn that thing off it will only confuse you.
Read a chess book.[/b]

a public apology shall suffice! or admit that chess sucks! admit it! admit it!

Originally posted by Jakal
Thanks R.C.

So the higher the number, the more significant the advantage.

Does a negative mean that black has the advantage?

yes apparently so, a negative number means that black has the advantage.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Ahhhh Boggles - I was wrong.

I was fooled by:

"....decimal numbers [b]mentioned after a move."

Books 'mention' - computers 'display'.

Jakal turn that thing off it will only confuse you.
Read a chess book.[/b]

My question arose from following the games of the Tata Steel Chess tournament. I am enjoying following the GMs' games. I just wanted to understand the notation.

Sorry for the semantics GP.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Typical of Robbie the Robot to think the lad is using a computer.

The OP is reading something called a chess book

The numbers in brackets will be the current times on the clock.
Giving you an indication of how long a player thinks over certain moves.

I've never seen a book where those were published, and frankly, I hope I never do. To the player, those times may be important, but to the reader, they're completely meaningless.

Mind you, so are the computer's evaluations, I agree with you on that at least.

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
I've never seen a book where those were published, and frankly, I hope I never do. To the player, those times may be important, but to the reader, they're completely meaningless.

Mind you, so are the computer's evaluations, I agree with you on that at least.

Richard

Chess Strategy by Eduard Gufeld and Nikolai Kalienchenko
published 2003

I got this book in my home library. It uses these numeric notations for evaluating a position. Instead of using the conventional symbols for evaluating a position.

Example,

White has a decisive advantage +- the numeric equivalent would be 0.95-0.85
Equal position = or 0.55-0.45
Black has a decisive advantage -+ 0.15-0.05
And so on and so forth.

According to the book, clearly the numerical values enables a judgement to be expressed more precisely.

For instance, instead of just "White stands better", you can convey the verdict "Whites chances of winning are greater than Blacks chances of drawing" (0.8)- in other words White ought to win the game with accurate play.
Or, "Whites winning chances are about equal to Blacks drawing chances" (0.75)

Similarly, you can say of a roughly equal position , "I would prefer to play the White side" (0.55). This, more or less, would be the verdict on the starting position of the game as statistics confirm. In other cases you could say, " I would prefer to play Black" (0.45) , or "Neither side can play for a win without taking a serious risk" (0.5)

I was lost win I first started reading this book ( given to me by a former GM ), But like with anything else the more you are exposed to it the less foreign it becomes.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
I've never seen a book where those were published, and frankly, I hope I never do. To the player, those times may be important, but to the reader, they're completely meaningless.

Mind you, so are the computer's evaluations, I agree with you on that at least.

Richard

There are a few out there.
I think one of the Fischer - Spassky books had the time taken added.
Also one of the Karpov - Korchnoi matches has times taken.

Bronstein thought adding the times would benefit a student and gives a game
with times and a very interesting looking graph based on the times taken
in the game Barondregt - Bronstein 1965. (The Sorcerer's Apprentice - page 237).

You see at a glance where Bronstein had his longest think. move 23...Bf8 13 minutes.

His 2nd longest was 9 minutes on deciding to take offered gambit pawn on move 4.

Black to Play.


Bronstein took 9 minutes to take the pawn.

I've had this postion on here and quite a few times OTB.
OTB against the club players I've played against the pawn is usually gone within seconds.

Surely there is something in that fact to mull over.

You also see in the Bronstein game White eating up more and more time
from moves 13-17. Then having two 23 minute thinks on moves 22 and 25.

White to play his 25th move.


White seeing no way to keep his attack going played 25.Ne3 getting the Queens off.

Bronstein took 3 minutes to play 25...Qxg4.

Full game.

Barondregt - Bronstein Hamburg 1965

Originally posted by utherpendragon
White has a decisive advantage +- the numeric equivalent would be 0.95-0.85
Equal position = or 0.55-0.45
Black has a decisive advantage -+ 0.15-0.05
And so on and so forth.

According to the book, clearly the numerical values enables a judgement to be expressed more precisely.

For instance, instead of just "White stands better", you can c ...[text shortened]... rate play.
Or, "Whites winning chances are about equal to Blacks drawing chances" (0.75)

I would have trouble trying to agree less. The numbers, without fuirther human explanation of the specifics of the position, are meaningless.

Sure, it may tell you that some engine (Which engine? What settings? When's hardware? Who operating it? Why bother?) thinks one player is nough-point-eight-five-three pawns' worth ahead of the other, and should therefore have no trouble drawing and only some trouble winning - but why? And how? That is the interesting thing.
One player may be better because he has more pawns, or because he has a pawn less but the opponent's pieces are uncoordinated - but who can tell me which of these is the case, and which is more important, and why it is important by exactly 0.387643756128 of a pawn? Only a human, a real human, can answer the first two questions, and nobody, neither the computer nor the human using it nor even the human programming the box* can answer the last one.

Computers are great at telling you (provided you're as much of a patzer as I am) what blunder you made, and how to avoid it in the future. They're not so good at telling you what strategic plans the grand masters have, let alone at teaching you how to plot such plans yourself.
Computers may out-tactic the grand masters - they do not out-teach them. And certainly not using bare, one-dimensional numbers.

Richard

* I should know, I'm a programmer, and the bleedin' things surprise me all the time.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Bronstein thought adding the times would benefit a student and gives a game with times and a very interesting looking graph based on the times taken in the game Barondregt - Bronstein 1965. (The Sorcerer's Apprentice - page 237).

You see at a glance where Bronstein had his longest think. move 23...Bf8 13 minutes.

His 2nd longest was 9 minutes on deciding to take offered gambit pawn on move 4.

Now, here's the thing: I think those comments are certainly worthwhile, and the facts significant. But's it's the fact that Bronstein thought it worth mentioning them, and explaining why, which makes them interesting, not the mere numbers.
Had Bronstein done nothing but explain that, and why, these were his most time-consuming moves, nothing would have been lost. Had he merely shown the numbers, without explaining their importance, they would have meant nothing.

Richard