>   You also penalize those players who *deliberately* chose
> to play what they knew to be sub-optimal moves, for
> whatever reason.  I just did this myself at RedHotPawn,
> choosing to grab a Knight rather than leap in with another
> piece to set up a 95%-certain mating net.  Why?  Because
> while the mating net was around 95% certain, the capture
> of the free piece was 100% certain (unless I have lost my
> mind)!  When I spot another mating net, things should be
> simple enough for me to get the 100% certainty I desire,
> and having captured yet another piece, this is all but
> inevitable, barring my opponent's resignation.

>   Another item which these statistical analyses overlook
> is the deliberate gift of, say, a half-point.  These have
> been known to occur in world championship level play,
> and of course the "nice guys" will be penalized for not
> being "tough players", despite clinching the match
> with their action.

>   In short, what can be learned is who was least prone
> to tactical blunders, and apparently, whose style leans
> most toward a sizable gap between what the program
> sees as the #1 optimal move, and #2 -- something I
> think may be termed the sharpness of play.  For one
> example, I am playing a game at RedHot now where
> I had to decide whether to develop my QB "normally"
> via ...d6 and then B-moves somewhere, or fianchetto
> via ...b6 and B-b7.  It was a toss-up, since it makes
> no difference whatever to the outcome. I expect a
> computer would see both moves as being nearly
> equal, weighing them in such a way as to slightly
> favor the move which gives the Bishop immediate
> control of squares, though this immediacy is quite
> irrelevant to the true value of the moves.

>   I wonder just how much time, and to what depth
> the moves were analyzed before scoring them.  I
> recall that often a player's move may be scored poorly,
> but if executed and stepped forward, a program may
> change its mind completely about this, suddenly
> realizing it had overlooked something.