Love the shout-out to Mark Crowther. The issue I have with eval pegged to a fixed win % is that this does not apply along the scale of all human skill levels (in games against players of the same rating R). This is the subject of my article https://rjlipton.wpcomstaging.com/2018/09/07/sliding-scale-problems/, whose main graphic heads the article on me in Time Magazine Online. But this may still work out fine. I certainly welcome the lowering of evals in unbalanced positions especially, for which I currently have to make an ad-hoc adjustment to balance the sample sizes.
I don't really see this as an issue. My training buddies and I informally treat +5 or more as "winning" , +2 to +5 as clearly better and anything under 2 as equal-ish. We know that while at the top level +1.5 might be decisive, it's not at all for us.
Love the shout-out to Mark Crowther. The issue I have with eval pegged to a fixed win % is that this does not apply along the scale of all human skill levels (in games against players of the same rating R). This is the subject of my article https://rjlipton.wpcomstaging.com/2018/09/07/sliding-scale-problems/, whose main graphic heads the article on me in Time Magazine Online. But this may still work out fine. I certainly welcome the lowering of evals in unbalanced positions especially, for which I currently have to make an ad-hoc adjustment to balance the sample sizes.
I don't really see this as an issue. My training buddies and I informally treat +5 or more as "winning" , +2 to +5 as clearly better and anything under 2 as equal-ish. We know that while at the top level +1.5 might be decisive, it's not at all for us.