Author: Mike S.
Date: 12:47:19 12/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2002 at 19:37:17, Bob Durrett wrote: >On December 09, 2002 at 17:19:19, Mike S. wrote: >(...) >>But for positional judgments, I would recommend to get the impression from >>games the engine has played, > >But does that not also require the expert analysis? For the "GM-like" cases, I guess so. But still, the engines make very ugly positional blunders sometimes, which even less-than-2000 elo players like me discover easily: Fritz 7 - Nimzo 8 [A06] ½-½ Novemberturnier 60'/40 Wien (1.6), 14.11.2002 [D]rnbqkb1r/ppp1pp1p/5np1/3p4/8/1P3N2/PBPPPPPP/RN1QKB1R w KQkq - 0 4 4.Bxf6? [4.c4; 4.e3; 4.g3] wasting the fianchetto bishop and the bishop pair and the same time, while the doubled pawn isn't such a big problem for black here, IMO. This is a "nobody is perfect" example. (Usually, Fritz 7 does better than that :o)) >(...) >My thinking now is that it may be good to let a chess engine analyze the entire >GM game. The average analysis time per move could be set to approximate >tournament time controls. The key to success of this method would be to use >extremely high quality games, with equally extremely high quality GM analyses. > >Then the computer's understanding of the positions of the game could be >compared to the GM analyses. You could try that using Fritz' "Full Analysis" feature or a similar feature of another program. If there is a threshold value (like in Fritz) to be set, which controls how big the difference of the evaluations has to be to produce a commentary variant, then I'm afraid it would have to be set to a small value for positional things. I would expect that positional observations are - most often - about much smaller eval differences that i.e. a blunder which looses a pawn or the like. In result of that, you will get comments and variants for very many moves, and again, you would have to analyse what really makes sense for the intended purpose... I usually start all analysis with a non-automatic :o) manual browsing through the game, more or less quick, where I'd already spot things like above (also some less simple one's :o) That can be more effective IMO than let run long time-consuming automatic analysis proceedures, whereafter one has to analyse manually anyway again, to choose the really interesting things from all the stuff the engine has produced. Regards, M.Scheidl
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.