Author: Steve Coladonato
Date: 04:45:04 09/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
<snip>
>>b) Analyze multiple games by player name rather than white or black.
>
>I suggested something like this to Shane back in the spring of this year. What
>I had in mind was a command-line executable -- like pgnscid -- that would
>emulate the crafty "annotate" syntax, with additional parameters to provide
>additional filtering information. Is this similar to what you had in mind?
>
Right now, SCID pops a window that allows you to choose:
a) both sides,
b) white side,
c) black side,
d) when move isn't best
I think an additional option could be included to allow you to type in the
player's last name to do the analysis from that side whether it be white or
black.
The "when move isn't best" could be modified to include a box for the threshold
and possibly default to 25 centipawns (i.e. a 1/4 pawn advantage).
In either case, I think the engine has to support this so it may be a moot point
from the SCID interface.
>>c) Display the score for the move played when the engine selected move is deemed
>>better than the move played.
>>I think the problem is more with the engine rather than the SCID interface. I
>>don't know if all engines return to the calling program the same information or
>>at least a consistent set of return values. The engine would have to return:
>>1) the score for the move played
>>2) the variation for that score (optionally used by calling program)
>>3) the score for the engine selected move
>>4) the variation for the engine selected move.
>
>That is probably not possible, given the nature of the communication between
>Scid and the analysis engine.
>
>Scid is using the Winboard engine protocol to communicate with the engines.
>Scid starts the engine, force-feeds it the current board position (using the
>edit command and the current game move list), and then tells the engine to
>analyze the position. The analysis output created by the engine is then
>displayed in the Scid analysis engine window and is added as annotation to the
>game record depending on the conditions the user set in the Annotate dialog.
>
>Whether or not you could get the information for #1 and #2 above is completely
>engine-dependent. If the engine considers the actual move played and displays
>analysis output for that move, you could potentially capture that output and
>save it for annotation purposes. If the engine doesn't consider the move or
>doesn't display analysis output for it, then there would be nothing to use. #3
>and #4 above are already available in the Scid annotation.
>
Yes. I agree with your comments. I will check Tim Mann's site later to see
what the Winboard/Xboard communication protocol is.
>>Scores should be absolute meaning (+) indicates white's favor and (-) indicates
>>black's favor rather than (+) indicating a score favorable to the side on move
>>and (-) indicating a score not favorable to the side on move.
>
>From my examination of the Scid source code, Shane has tried to make the score
>output absolute from the White perspective in the past (I think he has changed
>that format in more recent releases, but I'm not sure). Unfortunately, engine
>programmers are not at all consistent in the way the engines return evaluation
>scores -- some use absolute values and some use side-to-move -- and this setting
>is usually not configurable by the user. Obviously, this causes problems in
>standardizing the Scid output.
This again is dependent on what the engine returns, but I feel an absolute score
would be less confusing than a relative score.
>
>>If you compare the output of the crafty annotate command to the output of the
>>SCID annotate utility, just the differences I have mentioned make the Crafty
>>output much more informative than the SCID output. I'm not bashing Shane here.
>
>I'm not as familiar with Crafty annotation as I am with Scid annotation, so I
>can't comment one way or the other as to which is more useful or informative.
>
Here is a sample of the Crafty output from the annotate command.
6. Qxd4 Nf6
7. Bg5
({10:-0.30} 7. Bg5 Be7 8. O-O-O O-O 9. Bxf6 Bxf6 10. Qxd5 Qb6
11. Nge2 Rd8 12. Qf3 $10)
({10:-0.14} 7. Bb5+ Nc6 8. Nf3 Be7 9. Ne5 Bd7 10. Bxc6 bxc6 11.
Nxd7 Qxd7 12. O-O O-O 13. Bf4 $10)
7. ... Be7
8. Bb5+ Bd7
9. O-O-O
({10:-0.22} 9. O-O-O Nc6 10. Qd3 O-O 11. Bxf6 Bxf6 12. Nxd5 Ne5
13. Nxf6+ Qxf6 14. Qd5 Bxb5 15. Qxb5 $10)
({10:+0.15} 9. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 10. O-O-O Nb6 11. Bxf6 Bxf6 12. Qe3+
Kf8 13. Nge2 Rc8 14. Kb1 Qc7 15. Rhe1 Kg8 $10)
At move 7, White's move gave Black a 30 centipawn advantage while the suggested
move, 7.Bb5+ only gave Black a 14 centipawn advantage. A difference of 16
centipawns. In OTB play, this difference might be ignored.
At move 9, White's move gave Black an advantage of 22 centipawns. The
implication here is that Black's move 8 was probably not best as his advantage
dropped from -.30 to -.22 (the analysis was only being done from the White
side). On the other hand, the suggested move, 9.Bxd7+, would have given White
the advantage. A difference of +.37 between the move made and the suggested
move. Probably a significant difference in OTB play.
<snip>
>>I annotate my games with Crafty and then replace the game in SCID with the "can"
>>file.
>
>That's probably the best thing for you to do right now. Also, if you haven't
>already, I'd suggest taking a look at the Scid mailing list archives
>(http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=1830) to see if any of
>your questions or requests have been considered. Subscribing to the Scid
>mailing list is also highly recommended ;)
Thanks for the link. I was not aware of it. I didn't see a place for
subscribing to the mailing list though.
Steve
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.