Author: Steve Coladonato
Date: 05:35:44 03/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 20, 2001 at 19:37:47, Robert Pawlak wrote: >On March 20, 2001 at 09:31:23, Steve Coladonato wrote: > >><snip> >>> >>>>Steve >>> >>>AFAIK blunder checking speed has improved (if this is what you were referring >>>to). The developers made a specific effort in this regard. >>> >>>Bob >> >>Yes. I was referring to the blunder check option. However, in CA5 the blunder >>check returned the evaluation of the move made and then the variation(s) that it >>considered to be better. CA6 does not return the evaluation of the move made. >> >>Steve > >Try analysis with markers now. They added an evaluation of the move played, and >suggested variation to this function I'll try this one. Although it's a lot easier to just let the program go through the whole game and identify the moves it considers to be a blunder. Probably not the best way for analyzing one's games. :) > >IMHO with blunder checking, it is less necessary (although probably helpful), >since you set the threshold, and anything beyond it is what you consider to be a >significant deviation. > You're correct here. But I do like to see how the move made compares with what the program "thinks". I usually set the delta to 10 centipawns ( although in some games almost every move can be considered a blunder :) ) and its nice to know at a glance how your move stacks up against the engine's suggestion(s) as in CA5. Steve >Bob
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.