Body: <p>Stockfish is extremely powerful, but in certain positions (openings, middlegames, endgames), its top moves can appear nearly equivalent in evaluation—sometimes the top ten moves all fall within ±5 centipawns. For human players, these moves feel practically the same in strength. Even from a computer point of view, all these moves could lead to the same result anyway.</p>
  <p>What if we could add a more <strong>pragmatic</strong> angle? For instance, would it make sense to let Stockfish favor a move that’s slightly lower in raw evaluation but harder for a given opponent to counter? Against an human player, it might be beneficial to choose a move that's theoretically suboptimal but more complex to defend.</p>
  <h3>Key Points to Consider:</h3>
  <ol>
  <li><p><strong>Quality vs. Opponent’s ELO</strong>: How could we adjust the evaluation of moves based not just on their theoretical strength but also on the probability that an opponent at a given ELO will find the best reply?<br />
  <em>Example</em>: A move evaluated at +1 with a 80% success rate against a 2000 ELO player might be more practical than a +1.5 move with a 65% success rate.</p>
  </li>
  <li><p><strong>Surprise Factor and Practical Difficulty</strong>: Could we incorporate a “surprise” coefficient for complex moves that players at intermediate levels might struggle to evaluate accurately?</p>
  </li>
  <li><p><strong>Game Phase and Simulations</strong>: Should the evaluation change depending on the game phase? For instance, in an endgame, a pragmatic move might be preferred if the opponent is less experienced.</p>
  </li>
  </ol>
  <p>In summary, how could we integrate a <em>human-centric practicality</em> into Stockfish, making its evaluations more tailored to the skill level of the opponent?</p>
  <hr />
  <p>I'm interested in this topic from a broader perspective. For instance, I’d love to find a way to discover nice swindles in Atomic Chess for Black, where Black is technically losing from the start. If Black follows Stockfish’s best moves, White can memorize the main line and win, so Black needs to create traps instead. I'm trying to develop an evaluation function that could lead to these kinds of traps.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-11-12T16:42:58.873Z
Comments.Text: In most chess engines this is covered by the contempt factor, the higher the contempt the lower the evaluation the engine is prepared to accept to try to trick the opponent/hope the opponent goes wrong. I'd have to check for Stockfish though.
Comments.UserDisplayName: magd
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-11-12T16:45:21.467Z
Comments.Text: Seems like it's not implemented in current SF NNUE - https://www.reddit.com/r/ComputerChess/comments/o57f8n/stockfish_has_removed_the_contempt_option/
Comments.UserDisplayName: magd
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-11-12T16:56:40.430Z
Comments.Text: I feel that contempt is only partially related to this question.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Jean
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-11-12T18:09:36.317Z
Comments.Text: Fair enough but it covers two out of your three bullet points so the majority of the question.
Comments.UserDisplayName: magd
Tags: <engines><evaluation><human-versus-machine>
Title: Enhancing Stockfish: Practical Evaluations for Human Play
ThreadText: # Enhancing Stockfish: Practical Evaluations for Human Play
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2024-11-12)
  
  Stockfish is extremely powerful, but in certain positions (openings, middlegames, endgames), its top moves can appear nearly equivalent in evaluation—sometimes the top ten moves all fall within ±5 centipawns. For human players, these moves feel practically the same in strength. Even from a computer point of view, all these moves could lead to the same result anyway.
  
  What if we could add a more **pragmatic** angle? For instance, would it make sense to let Stockfish favor a move that’s slightly lower in raw evaluation but harder for a given opponent to counter? Against an human player, it might be beneficial to choose a move that's theoretically suboptimal but more complex to defend.
  
  ### Key Points to Consider:
  
  1. **Quality vs. Opponent’s ELO**: How could we adjust the evaluation of moves based not just on their theoretical strength but also on the probability that an opponent at a given ELO will find the best reply?  
     *Example*: A move evaluated at +1 with a 80% success rate against a 2000 ELO player might be more practical than a +1.5 move with a 65% success rate.
  2. **Surprise Factor and Practical Difficulty**: Could we incorporate a “surprise” coefficient for complex moves that players at intermediate levels might struggle to evaluate accurately?
  3. **Game Phase and Simulations**: Should the evaluation change depending on the game phase? For instance, in an endgame, a pragmatic move might be preferred if the opponent is less experienced.
  
  In summary, how could we integrate a *human-centric practicality* into Stockfish, making its evaluations more tailored to the skill level of the opponent?
  
  ---
  
  I'm interested in this topic from a broader perspective. For instance, I’d love to find a way to discover nice swindles in Atomic Chess for Black, where Black is technically losing from the start. If Black follows Stockfish’s best moves, White can memorize the main line and win, so Black needs to create traps instead. I'm trying to develop an evaluation function that could lead to these kinds of traps.
  
  **Tags:** engines, evaluation, human-versus-machine
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: In most chess engines this is covered by the contempt factor, the higher the contempt the lower the evaluation the engine is prepared to accept to try to trick the opponent/hope the opponent goes wrong. I'd have to check for Stockfish though.  
  > **username_1**: Seems like it's not implemented in current SF NNUE - https://www.reddit.com/r/ComputerChess/comments/o57f8n/stockfish_has_removed_the_contempt_option/  
  > **username_0**: I feel that contempt is only partially related to this question.  
  > **username_1**: Fair enough but it covers two out of your three bullet points so the majority of the question.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 0 answers
  
  