Author: chandler yergin
Date: 09:00:52 02/03/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 2006 at 02:12:48, John Merlino wrote:
>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?
For illustration purposes: With Open Database in analysis mode
adding Rybka as kibitzer.
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "24"]
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 *
589880: ,
[D]r1b1nrk1/pp1nqpbp/2p3p1/2p1P3/8/2N1PN1P/PP2BPPB/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 1
Analysis by Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit:
13.Ne4
= (0.03) Depth: 3 00:00:00
13.e6
= (0.13) Depth: 3 00:00:00
13.e6
= (0.13) Depth: 4 00:00:00
13.e6 fxe6
= (0.17) Depth: 5 00:00:00
13.Qc2 Nxe5
= (0.24) Depth: 5 00:00:00
13.Qc2 Nxe5 14.Nxe5
= (0.14) Depth: 6 00:00:00 10kN
13.Qc2 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Bxe5 15.Bxe5 Qxe5 16.Qe4
= (0.15) Depth: 7 00:00:00 19kN
13.Qc2 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Bxe5 15.Bxe5 Qxe5 16.Qe4 Qxe4
= (-0.11) Depth: 8 00:00:01 44kN
13.e6 Qxe6 14.Qb3 Qe7 15.Rfd1
= (0.05) Depth: 8 00:00:01 84kN
13.e6 Qxe6 14.Qd3 Nb6 15.Rad1 c4
= (0.08) Depth: 9 00:00:03 181kN
13.e6 Qxe6 14.Bf4 Ne5 15.Ne4 Qe7 16.Rc1
= (0.05) Depth: 10 00:00:06 344kN
13.e6 Qxe6 14.Qd2 b5 15.Bf4 b4 16.Na4 Nef6
= (0.02) Depth: 11 00:00:17 819kN
13.Qd2 Nxe5 14.Rfd1 Nxf3+ 15.Bxf3 c4 16.Rac1 Be6 17.Ne2 f5
= (0.04) Depth: 11 00:00:23 1144kN
13.Qd2 Nxe5 14.Rfd1 Nc7 15.Qc2 Re8 16.Rd2 b6 17.Nxe5
= (0.02) Depth: 12 00:00:33 1713kN
13.e6 Qxe6 14.Qd2 Qe7 15.Rad1 Nb6 16.e4 Be6
= (0.06) Depth: 12 00:00:39 2040kN
13.e6 Qxe6 14.Qc2 Nd6 15.Ng5 Qe7 16.Rad1 Ne5 17.Nce4 Nxe4
= (0.04) Depth: 13 00:01:06 3541kN
13.Qd2 Nxe5 14.Rfd1 Nxf3+ 15.Bxf3 c4 16.Rac1 Be6 17.Ne2 f5
= (0.10) Depth: 13 00:01:22 4288kN
13.Qd2 Nxe5 14.Rfd1 Nxf3+ 15.Bxf3 c4 16.Rac1 Be6 17.Ne2 f5
= (0.05) Depth: 14 00:01:48 5786kN
13.Qd2 Nxe5 14.Rfd1 Nc7 15.Qc2 Re8 16.Rac1 b6 17.Rd2 Ba6
= (-0.03) Depth: 15 00:03:54 12715kN
13.e6 Qxe6 14.Qd2 b5 15.Rfd1 Qe7 16.Rac1 Nb6
= (0.01) Depth: 15 00:06:33 21190kN
13.e6 Qxe6 14.Qd2 b5 15.Rfd1 Nb6 16.Qc2 Qe7 17.a3
= (0.03) Depth: 16 00:10:04 33339kN
(, 03.02.2006)
Copy position & go to Fritz Clear Board & paste FEN
Go to Toolbar
Tools
Deep position analysis
select your desired Branching factors.
[Event "Blitz:5'"]
[Site "MyTown"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "[D]r1b1nrk1/pp1nqpbp/2p3p1/2p1P3/8/2N1PN1P/PP2BPPB/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 13"]
[PlyCount "7"]
[TimeControl "300"]
13. e6 (13. Qd3 Nxe5 (13... Bxe5 14. Nxe5 (14. Rad1 Bxh2+ 15. Nxh2 Ndf6 16. e4
$15 {[%eval -40,12]}) 14... Nxe5 15. Qe4 f6 16. Qh4 $11 {[%eval 20,12]}) 14.
Bxe5 (14. Nxe5 Bxe5 15. Bxe5 Qxe5 16. f4 $15 {[%eval -32,13]}) 14... Bxe5 15.
Nxe5 Qxe5 16. f4 $15 {[%eval -32,13]}) 13... Qxe6 (13... fxe6 14. Qd2 (14. Qc2
Ndf6 15. Rfe1 Nd5 16. Ne4 $11 {[%eval 0,11]}) 14... e5 15. Qc2 b5 16. a4 $14 {
[%eval 51,11]}) 14. Qc2 (14. Bf4 Ne5 15. Qc2 Nd6 16. Rfc1 $15 {[%eval -32,11]})
14... Ne5 15. Rad1 Nd6 16. Bf4 $11 {[%eval -22,11]} *
>>
>>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.