upvote
There are also objective measures for more fine position evaluation.

For winning/drawn positions: "What is the smallest program that can guarantee your side to win/draw" probably adding some time constraint.

reply
That is a neat variation.
reply
Measuring the size of a model that produces a win?

Theoretically valid, but that's not going to be a very useful/diable.

reply
No, but in practice centipawns reported by the imperfect engine are good.

But I want to point out that in theory there is also something more than pure win/ lose/ draw with prefect play.

reply
I think program size is probably not a good measure since any heuristic you can put in could be discovered at runtime with a metaheuristic that searches for good heuristics. Time and memory make more sense.
reply
Yes, this is a huge omission, because it means that as engines improve, the stated advantage becomes increasingly meaningless to humans (which is the opposite of what we may intuitively expect).

What I really want to know as a player is how easy it will be for me to win from this position against someone of my opponent's strength, which is admittedly a very hard thing to define, let alone compute.

reply
How likely you mean. It's the same effort to win a game as to lose a game.
reply
Not only it is mentioned, but it's mentioned that it was mentioned as early as 1950, by none other than Claude Shannon:

>""under perfect play all chess games be a the same single one outcome of the following (we just currently don’t know which one, “A” playing the white pieces): Mr. A says, “I resign” or Mr. B says, “I resign” or Mr. A says, “I offer a draw,” and Mr. B replies, “I accept"

reply