Making Great Even Better

I use the Lichess feature which analyzes a game just played and then allows me to find and re-try my mistakes. The furnished game-long track of the engine's evaluation of the game is delightful and helpful -- but could be made even better. And I suspect the change would be relatively easy for the programmers to implement.

What change? Well, visualize a game evaluation graph -- as furnished (on request) by Lichess. Can you imagine the evaluation line going up and down? As white or black gains or loses a relative advantage?

NOW imagine -- superimposed on the graph -- parallel horizontal lines showing the location of the symbols for "white is slightly better" (perhaps from .25 to .75) or "black is slightly better" (perhaps - 0.25 to -0.75) or "equality" (perhaps -0.25 to 0.25) -- and so forth for a white or black "significant advantage" or "winning advantage." If that doesn't somehow violate some copyright or other right held by somebody else in the symbols -- it would seem to be very helpful.

If such lines could properly be added to evaluation graphs, they would go from great to spectacular. Anybody else think this would be helpful?

It's not a huge thing, obviously. But nice, no?

Ah, I see. But I guess the problem might be that it'd be awfully subjective where the lines should be, and even books and engines don't agree what counts as "significant advantage".

Well, ChessBase has come up with numbers, it seems. If you run their evaluation function it puts in the symbols along with the numeric evaluation.

I actually think a reasonable decision about which evaluation values to choose could be worked out without much difficulty. It's not as if they would have to be found on a stone tablet and agreed to by all on the planet. More than 0.75 or less than -0.75 might be the next "Substantial advantage" lines -- and perhaps more than 1.5 or less than - 1.5 picked as "winning advantage" lines.

I suspect there are enough experts around who might want to help decide.