Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:04:01 01/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2005 at 23:58:03, Gordon Rattray wrote: >Hi, > >What is regarded as state-of-the-art for the auto-annotation of a chess game? I >believe that in the past Fritz has won awards for this functionality. Is Fritz >still the best for providing "human like" annotations to a chess game? Any >other software that people find useful for this? > >thanks in advance, > >Gordon Programs are good at providing information about moves played. They can provide the score and PV for the move actually played, and a move/PV for a better move (or better set of moves). And they can even provide a score and PV for specific moves the human would like to know about. But that is _all_ they provide. Turning on the "gibberish mode" that some programs have (I think CM was one of the worst in this regard) produces nonsensical prose that often has nothing to do with what is going on. One often plays e4 as white, but only rarely is the reason to attack f5 or d5, I find the "prose" type output to be utterly ridiculous, and even worse, it is wrong about 99% of the time when trying to explain why a GM played a specific move. The GM might have played a move to prevent a weak pawn problem a few moves further on, while the program will conclude it is all about control of some square, or opening a diagonal, or whatever. In short, it can be wrong, or it can be wrong but look reasonable to a unpracticed eye, which becomes misleading. My advice is "forget it" for the time being. Alpha/Beta is good tor determining the best move or best score or both. It doesn't determine _reasons_ in any shape, form or fashion...
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.