Author: Komputer Korner
Date: 13:59:44 12/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 1998 at 14:12:09, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On December 16, 1998 at 00:48:43, Richard A. Fowell (fowell@netcom.com) wrote:
>[snip]
>>Hmmm ... what HIARCS calls "monitor mode"
>>and what MacChess calls "Analyze Player vs. Player"
>>
>>Where are they these days on:
>>- analyze EPD?
>>- Next best move?
>>- ability to copy analysis to clipboard/file?
>All of those features are very interesting to me. I would like to see every
>program have *at least* the EPD analysis ability of Crafty. Especially
>interesting is the ability to score a test suite after it has been run. How
>many tools can do that automatically? There is one measure I can do without in
>Crafty's analysis: acs. I don't care so much how long it took because the epd
>record does not contain machine information. Therefore, that measure has no
>value whatever. Why report it?
>
>>That reminds me I've been wondering what the "Analysis Features"
>>people wanted to see when they ranked "Better Analysis Features"
>>as the 2nd most desired improvement (after strength improvement)
>>to the question posed in CCC poll question #9:
>>
>>"Which improvements would you most like to see in
>>the next version of your favorite chess playing program?"
>>
>>What, specifically, were the features you wanted to see added?
>>( I suppose it might be informative to include the name of the
>>program you'd like to see this improvement in.)
>I would like to see more focused, two-sided analysis. Analysis tends to be
>centered on one player. Why not show white's best move and why. Then show
>Black's best refutation and the reason.
>
>My biggest problem with analysis from computer programs is that they do not
>follow the EPD standard -- but branch off and do their own thing whenever they
>feel like it {Crafty is the best adhering -- but the analysis code was written
>by Steven J. Edwards so we should not be surprised.}. The sad part is that all
>their little extensions could be handled by proper use of the standard anyway.
>On the other hand, some programs offer little or no analysis. The Chessmaster
>series, in particular is a pain in the butt to analyze with. I would love to be
>able to utilize the King engine for some top quality analysis in the Chess
>Analysis Project, but it is quite impossible to do so. I would also like the
>programs to divulge all the information they have. Some programs, for instance,
>do not divulge the number of plys ahead they are looking. I think this very
>valuable. I think node count is of less value -- especially since slow
>searching programs are at least on a par with fast searchers -- but the relative
>differences for a single program could be useful.
>
>As far as analysis -- one enormous feature would be to improve the display of
>the results. For instance, they could animate the pv.
>
>Finally, they should store the analysis in a database.
CDB's ability to add a user set number of plies of the PV analysis to the tree
book moves is a very nice feature. I would like to see an engine have the
ability to take an opening book and analyze it on a user setting time control
and write a symbol evaluation beside each move. Rebel 9 and 10 can do this but
only for a score evaluation and only for the non user editable books. I want it
for the user editable books.
--
Komputer Korner
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.