@MrLizardWizard said [^](/forum/redirect/post/cWCYQW2c)
> > > Could you explain Q_h = P(win)+0.5P(draw) / ( P(win)+P(draw)+P(loss) ) ?
> > > As the sum in the denominator goes over all the 3 possible outcomes, is it not just equal to exactly 1.0?
> >
> > how can denominator sum go in all outcomes? if your win rate is 90% so P(W) = 0.90 and draw is 2 P(D) = 0.02 and loss is P(L) = 0.08, than Q_H = 0.90 + 0.5 (0.02) / 0.90 + 0.02 + 0.08 = 0.91 / 1 = 0.91 but if your loss rate is very high lets say you losing by 90% P(L) = 0.90
> > your draw rate is P(D) = 0.02 and P(W) = 0.08
> >
> > than we get Q_H = 0.08 + 0.5 (0.02) / 0.08 + 0.02 + 0.90 = 0.09 so when P(W) goes up its close to 1 but when P(W) goes down it reachs 0
>
> No, I mean why even have the denominator in the equation at all? You could just write Q_h = P(win)+0.5P(draw).
>
> P(win)+P(draw)+P(loss) = 1.0 by definition
because thats how I used in my calculation on my piece of paper, you can write however you want, plus writing division makes it easy to understand while coding
@Noobmasterplayer123 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/sE4eHXwo)
> > > > Could you explain Q_h = P(win)+0.5P(draw) / ( P(win)+P(draw)+P(loss) ) ?
> > > > As the sum in the denominator goes over all the 3 possible outcomes, is it not just equal to exactly 1.0?
> > >
> > > how can denominator sum go in all outcomes? if your win rate is 90% so P(W) = 0.90 and draw is 2 P(D) = 0.02 and loss is P(L) = 0.08, than Q_H = 0.90 + 0.5 (0.02) / 0.90 + 0.02 + 0.08 = 0.91 / 1 = 0.91 but if your loss rate is very high lets say you losing by 90% P(L) = 0.90
> > > your draw rate is P(D) = 0.02 and P(W) = 0.08
> > >
> > > than we get Q_H = 0.08 + 0.5 (0.02) / 0.08 + 0.02 + 0.90 = 0.09 so when P(W) goes up its close to 1 but when P(W) goes down it reachs 0
> >
> > No, I mean why even have the denominator in the equation at all? You could just write Q_h = P(win)+0.5P(draw).
> >
> > P(win)+P(draw)+P(loss) = 1.0 by definition
>
> because thats how I used in my calculation on my piece of paper, you can write however you want, plus writing division makes it easy to understand while coding
Fair enough; it just looked odd to me.
It's neat seeing the different evaluations at the different Elo levels, with the higher levels (as expected) seeing more advantage where there isn't any at the lower levels.
@MrLizardWizard said [^](/forum/redirect/post/rMw7LF1X)
> > > > > Could you explain Q_h = P(win)+0.5P(draw) / ( P(win)+P(draw)+P(loss) ) ?
> > > > > As the sum in the denominator goes over all the 3 possible outcomes, is it not just equal to exactly 1.0?
> > > >
> > > > how can denominator sum go in all outcomes? if your win rate is 90% so P(W) = 0.90 and draw is 2 P(D) = 0.02 and loss is P(L) = 0.08, than Q_H = 0.90 + 0.5 (0.02) / 0.90 + 0.02 + 0.08 = 0.91 / 1 = 0.91 but if your loss rate is very high lets say you losing by 90% P(L) = 0.90
> > > > your draw rate is P(D) = 0.02 and P(W) = 0.08
> > > >
> > > > than we get Q_H = 0.08 + 0.5 (0.02) / 0.08 + 0.02 + 0.90 = 0.09 so when P(W) goes up its close to 1 but when P(W) goes down it reachs 0
> > >
> > > No, I mean why even have the denominator in the equation at all? You could just write Q_h = P(win)+0.5P(draw).
> > >
> > > P(win)+P(draw)+P(loss) = 1.0 by definition
> >
> > because thats how I used in my calculation on my piece of paper, you can write however you want, plus writing division makes it easy to understand while coding
>
> Fair enough; it just looked odd to me.
> It's neat seeing the different evaluations at the different Elo levels, with the higher levels (as expected) seeing more advantage where there isn't any at the lower levels.
Yeah exactly might be handy tool for chess players for opening prep or studying for their ELO, Engine elo is very abstracted but its funny how 2600 maia elo is almost close to engine evals
It must be said; but I really wanted to make some Smooth Criminal or Beat It reference with all the “HEE HEE” going on here
In all seriousness, fantastic write up and something I’m interested in. I had actually built out my own little variation of a “best move at a given position” using stockfish and ACPL calculations looking in both previous and next position for analysis.
It’s interesting how many ways one can interpret a move because the human factor is so much different than the binary nature of a machine.
@foxtracks said [^](/forum/redirect/post/7xZCXlpP)
> It must be said; but I really wanted to make some Smooth Criminal or Beat It reference with all the “HEE HEE” going on here
>
> In all seriousness, fantastic write up and something I’m interested in. I had actually built out my own little variation of a “best move at a given position” using stockfish and ACPL calculations looking in both previous and next position for analysis.
>
> It’s interesting how many ways one can interpret a move because the human factor is so much different than the binary nature of a machine.
Indeed! When we look at various ELO HEE clearly human factor relates to the strength of the human