Answers.Body: <p>You have several questions which don't appear to be related. I'll answer you this one:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Q: If it is very sharp and complicated then at least humans cannot overlook all options and a win has gotten more likely. Would simply the width of the engine's positional tree be a useful measure? </p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Yes. There's a related concept known as <strong>positional complexity</strong>. Of course, the more complicated the position it is, the less likely it should end with a draw.</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li><a href="https://ailab.si/matej/doc/Using_Heuristic-Search_Based_Engines_for_Estimating_Human_Skill_at_Chess.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Using Heuristic-Search Based Engines for Estimating Human Skill at Chess</a> has a definition for the complexity measure. Their definition is simple and straightforward. <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220174548_Computer_Analysis_of_World_Chess_Champions" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Computer Analysis of World Chess Champion</a> is a similar paper.</li>
  <li>Chess DB has a <a href="https://chess-db.com/public/research/qualityofplay.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">brief</a> description</li>
  <li><a href="http://content.iospress.com/articles/icga-journal/icg0012" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Who is the Master</a> defines several more measures, they call them "conformance".</li>
  <li>Another related: <a href="https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/Reg12IPRs.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Intrinsic Ratings Compendium</a></li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>If you require technical explanation, please edit your question and I'll update my answer.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-13T02:48:26.947Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-10-13T09:22:03.587Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2017-10-13T09:22:03.587Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Body: <p><em>I was asked to rephrase this question. Hope at least someone gets what I'm trying to mean here now.</em></p>
  
  <p>A position can be equal but asymmetrical. If it is very sharp and complicated then at least humans cannot overlook all options and a win has gotten more likely. That one be one kind of factor to consider for constructing such a statistical measure.</p>
  
  <p>Would simply the width of the engine's positional tree be a useful measure? Would there be any interest in such a measure?</p>
  
  <p>The players' personal inclination to draw as a matter of life long habit, or their need to win a point where a draw would still be a title loss, could be adjusted for in quantifiable and rational ways, since it is a statistic I'm asking for here, not a miracle prediction for one particular game yet to be played.</p>
  
  <p>Is there a list of what combinations of openings have ended in a draw at top level? Would that be of any interest when trying to predict the outcome of any game?</p>
  
  <p>Can all such things which appear to be of meaning for predicting  the outcome of games in general?</p>
  
  <p><em>(I can</em>t believe it is so very hard to explain with ever more words these obvious thoughts to people here who are supposed to be interested in Chess of all things).*</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-10-12T22:10:51.897Z
Comments.Text: Can you clarify your question? You're post contains several questions which don't appear to be related. What does a player's score have to do with a computer's search tree, or if a position is sharp and complicated?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Herb
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-10-13T00:47:40.890Z
Comments.Text: There's an answer to the question for the engine part. However, "... what combinations of openings..." should be in a new question. It's not related.
Comments.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-10-13T02:55:51.957Z
Comments.Text: I think it's a fair question, on the softer side. (We don't yet have 'soft-question' as a tag here, but it might be applicable here.) And the follow-up questions are reasonable at exploring different aspects.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Laska
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-10-13T21:13:41.080Z
Comments.Text: Now you've added more questions. Please stick to one question per post. Also, consider taking the tour, and reading https://chess.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask
Comments.UserDisplayName: Herb
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-10-14T13:05:27.930Z
Comments.Text: @LocalFluff Please be nice to someone who is just trying to help. I can count five question marks in your question. Granted, they are related to each other, but IMHO "Is there a list of what combinations of openings have ended in a draw at top level?" should be a separate question, for example. You're free to disagree, of course, but I believe that separating questions increases your chances of getting answers for all of them. Even if they're related. They're not duplicates, so why don't ask two questions instead? (And put a link from one to the other)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Pedro A
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-10-14T13:21:58.157Z
Comments.Text: @Hamsteriffic He is not helpful and he is not nice. He's a troll. Would've been much easier for him to answer or shut up. Or contributed to an answer of the part of the question that he is capable of understanding. But he prefers to troll instead.
Comments.UserDisplayName: LocalFluff
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-10-14T13:40:14.763Z
Comments.Text: @HerbWolfe OP made an edit for some nonsense on you in his question. I've rolled back to his original question. You guys, talk in peace!
Comments.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Tags: <engines><analysis><draw>
Title: Is there a measure of how likely it is that a position will end in a draw?
ThreadText: # Is there a measure of how likely it is that a position will end in a draw?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2017-10-12)
  
  *I was asked to rephrase this question. Hope at least someone gets what I'm trying to mean here now.*
  
  A position can be equal but asymmetrical. If it is very sharp and complicated then at least humans cannot overlook all options and a win has gotten more likely. That one be one kind of factor to consider for constructing such a statistical measure.
  
  Would simply the width of the engine's positional tree be a useful measure? Would there be any interest in such a measure?
  
  The players' personal inclination to draw as a matter of life long habit, or their need to win a point where a draw would still be a title loss, could be adjusted for in quantifiable and rational ways, since it is a statistic I'm asking for here, not a miracle prediction for one particular game yet to be played.
  
  Is there a list of what combinations of openings have ended in a draw at top level? Would that be of any interest when trying to predict the outcome of any game?
  
  Can all such things which appear to be of meaning for predicting the outcome of games in general?
  
  *(I can*t believe it is so very hard to explain with ever more words these obvious thoughts to people here who are supposed to be interested in Chess of all things).\*
  
  **Tags:** engines, analysis, draw
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Can you clarify your question? You're post contains several questions which don't appear to be related. What does a player's score have to do with a computer's search tree, or if a position is sharp and complicated?  
  > **username_2**: There's an answer to the question for the engine part. However, "... what combinations of openings..." should be in a new question. It's not related.  
  > **username_3**: I think it's a fair question, on the softer side. (We don't yet have 'soft-question' as a tag here, but it might be applicable here.) And the follow-up questions are reasonable at exploring different aspects.  
  > **username_1**: Now you've added more questions. Please stick to one question per post. Also, consider taking the tour, and reading https://chess.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask  
  > **username_4**: @username_0 Please be nice to someone who is just trying to help. I can count five question marks in your question. Granted, they are related to each other, but IMHO "Is there a list of what combinations of openings have ended in a draw at top level?" should be a separate question, for example. You're free to disagree, of course, but I believe that separating questions increases your chances of getting answers for all of them. Even if they're related. They're not duplicates, so why don't ask two questions instead? (And put a link from one to the other)  
  > **username_0**: @Hamsteriffic He is not helpful and he is not nice. He's a troll. Would've been much easier for him to answer or shut up. Or contributed to an answer of the part of the question that he is capable of understanding. But he prefers to troll instead.  
  > **username_2**: @username_1Wolfe OP made an edit for some nonsense on you in his question. I've rolled back to his original question. You guys, talk in peace!  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2017-10-13. Score: 6
  
  You have several questions which don't appear to be related. I'll answer you this one:
  
  > Q: If it is very sharp and complicated then at least humans cannot overlook all options and a win has gotten more likely. Would simply the width of the engine's positional tree be a useful measure?
  
  Yes. There's a related concept known as **positional complexity**. Of course, the more complicated the position it is, the less likely it should end with a draw.
  
  * [Using Heuristic-Search Based Engines for Estimating Human Skill at Chess](https://ailab.si/matej/doc/Using_Heuristic-Search_Based_Engines_for_Estimating_Human_Skill_at_Chess.pdf) has a definition for the complexity measure. Their definition is simple and straightforward. [Computer Analysis of World Chess Champion](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220174548_Computer_Analysis_of_World_Chess_Champions) is a similar paper.
  * Chess DB has a [brief](https://chess-db.com/public/research/qualityofplay.html) description
  * [Who is the Master](http://content.iospress.com/articles/icga-journal/icg0012) defines several more measures, they call them "conformance".
  * Another related: [Intrinsic Ratings Compendium](https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/Reg12IPRs.pdf)
  
  If you require technical explanation, please edit your question and I'll update my answer.
  
  
  ---
  
  