Help understanding the computer analysis output

I think whether or not AI should be used to judge games that have been abandoned by mass timeout would be a contentious issue, which I believe was debated when it was brought up in one of the threads about mass timeouts.

From what we’ve seen of strong AI analysis of amateur games is that kyu-level players are liable to make many game changing blunders throughout a game. Using AI to call an incomplete game would rule against whoever happened to make the previous blunder. However, if the game were actually finished by the human players, the outcome would be determined by whoever made the last blunder.

On another note, I actually hope that the “ongoing game score estimator” (I only mean the one that is available to players while the game is still ongoing, since using AI as tool to help in stone status and scoring disputes is different and potentially helpful) is not improved with strong AI. Right now, the score estimator is terrible, so I don’t think too many people take it seriously and it doesn’t impact too many games. However, if players had the ability to query a strong AI to evaluate the current position, then I think that would be a form of assistance that should not be allowed.

For example, sometimes my opponent would make a blunder that I would not realize and fail to capitalize on (essentially one blunder followed by another). However, with a strong AI giving score (or even just win probability) estimates, that might tip me off that my opponent’s last move presents an opportunity that I should search for, and thus a decent score estimator could provide unfair AI assistance.