Author: John Merlino
Date: 23:12:48 02/02/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 2006 at 01:32:28, Dann Corbit wrote: >On February 02, 2006 at 23:59:22, Joseph Ciarrochi wrote: > >>1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. Nf3 d6 5. Bf4 O-O >>6. e3 Nbd7 7. Be2 Qe8 8. h3 e5 9. Bh2 Qe7 10. O-O c6 11. >>c5 dxc5 12. dxe5 Ne8 13)e6 (= at depth = 19) >> >>Rybka believes it is fully compensated for the lost pawn. i presume (perhaps >>incorrectly) that it is because of black's doubled pawns and white's greater >>activity and space >> >>I think it would be really nice for an analysis tool to give you greater >>information about why it is evalauting a position a certain way. e.g., why is >>this position evaluated as equal? What sort of output would an engine have to >>generate to give you this information? > >ChessMaster has a "Human Readable" analysis why a position is supposed to be >good or bad. Well, that's not exactly true. It doesn't do that for a particular position, but rather will try to summarize why it thinks the engine's PV improves upon the current position. Johan and I, for CMX000, discussed breaking down all of the various numbers that go into an evaluation and displaying them in the post-game analysis, but that never got implemented. jm
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.