This month’s edition of [Chess Life](http://www.uschess.org/chesslife) has an interesting article advocating for changes to the way that we annotate chess games. The author, [GM Andy Soltis](http://www.chessgames.com/player/andrew_soltis.html), presents his argument on the basis that engines have changed the way games are analyzed in such a way that statements like *White has a slight advantage* are no longer relevant. I think that he raises some interesting points, but I am not sure that the changes to evaluations brought on by engine analysis warrant such a complete and drastic overhaul.
#### Humanity’s Slight Advantage
One of the key points in the discussion is the idea that in many situations, *X color has a slight advantage* can hinge on whether the player does not blunder. Therefore, the annotation is more realistic as *X color has a slight advantage as long as they play perfectly according to this analysis*. GM Soltis believes that the precision of chess engines allows us more accurately present lines as *White wins with X move* or *Black wins in 37 moves with X.*
[pgn]
[Event “Corus”]
[Site “Wijk aan Zee NED”]
[Date “2008.01.23”]
[Round “10”]
[White “Loek van Wely”]
[Black “Magnus Carlsen”]
[Result “0-1”]
[ECO “A58”]
[Annotator “Soltis, Andy”]
[PlyCount “98”]
[EventDate “2008.??.??”]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. bxa6 g6 6. Nc3 Bxa6 7. Nf3 d6 8. g3 Bg7 9. Bg2 Nbd7 10. Rb1 Qa5 11. Bd2 Nb6 12. b3 Qa3 13. O-O O-O 14. Ne1 Bb7 15. Nc2 Qa6 16. e4 Ne8 17. a4 Nc7 18. Re1 Rae8 19. b4 Nd7 20. Nb5 Rc8 21. Bh3 f5 22. Bg5 Ne5 23. bxc5 Qxa4 24. Nxc7 Rxc7 25. c6 Bc8 26. exf5 Rxf5 27. f4 Nc4 28. Rb4 Qa7+ 29. Kg2 Qc5 30. Rb8 {[#]} Nb2 (30… Rf8) 31. Qf3 Qxc2+ 32. Re2 Qb1 ( 32… Qc3) 33. Bxf5 Qxf5 34. g4 Qf7 35. Bxe7 h5 36. Bxd6 hxg4 37. Qe4 (37. Qxg4 Qxd5+) (37. Qb3) 37… Kh7 38. Bxc7 (38. Rbxb2 Bf5 39. Qc4 Bxb2 40. Bxc7) 38… Bf5 39. Qe3 (39. Qe7 Qxd5+ 40. Kg1) 39… Qxd5+ {[#]} 40. Kg3 (40. Kg1 Bd4 41. Rh8+) 40… Nc4 (40… Bd4 41. Be5) 41. Qf2 (41. Rd8 Qxc6 42. Qb3 Qxc7 43. Rd5 {[#]}) 41… Qd3+ 42. Kg2 Be4+ 43. Rxe4 Qxe4+ 44. Kf1 Qd3+ 45. Qe2 Nd2+ 46. Ke1 Nf3+ 47. Kf1 Nxh2+ 48. Ke1 Bc3+ 49. Kf2 g3+ 0-1
[/pgn]
This precision is compounded with the growing prevalence of [tablebases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase). Recently, [lichess.org](http://www.lichess.org) has started offering an incredible seven (7) piece tablebase. Technological advancement only promises a future where we could surpass a ten (10) piece tablebase. That accuracy lends some credence to GM Soltis’s argument.
Despite these advances and despite my passion for technology, I believe that there are artistic and strategic elements in chess that computers might never understand or utilize. [Stockfish](http://www.stockfishchess.org) can analyze millions of combinations in hindsight and state unequivocally that white can win in 37 moves without a blunder, but humans are not capable of that kind of analysis. With humanity, there is *always* a chance of blunder, mistake, or other factor that can affect a game’s outcome.
#### Room to Grow
GM Soltis makes some excellent suggestions with regards to these engine analysis comments, however. Specifically, using **~** versus **!?** because it more accurately reflects the nearly infinite possibilities presented in post-game analysis by a strong chess engine. Such a change might take some time to catch on, but it would make reading an in-depth analysis easier for newer generations that have grown up in the age of the hashtag, markdown format, and other digital mediums.
As a medical professional who spends his time pouring over spreadsheets and other electronic data, it would be nice to see more of the standard notations from large data sets and relational databases make their way into chess annotation because, curiously, it’s more in line with what is increasingly becoming a common language in the digital age.