On 12/16/2010 10:07 PM, Matthew Twomey wrote:
Hi,
> Ok, this still doesn't quite click for me - but I may still be
> misunderstanding:
>
>> What we do now, is compare your scores of the position before 46.Ke6+
>> was played and after it was played. If the score-before is better (for
>> white) tha
Ok, this still doesn't quite click for me - but I may still be
misunderstanding:
> What we do now, is compare your scores of the position before 46.Ke6+
> was played and after it was played. If the score-before is better (for
> white) than the score-after then, depending on the score difference,
>
Joost,
Apologies for the slow reply here. I'm still digesting what you've said.
Regarding the specific method of annotation, I think I get it now. The
key, for me, was here:
> > What we do now, is compare your scores of the position before 46.Ke6+
> > was played and after it was played.
What I
On 11/30/2010 01:47 AM, Matthew Twomey wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 09:10 +0100, Joost 't Hart wrote:
>> On 11/29/2010 02:44 AM, Matthew Twomey wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Good that it works a bit more to your liking now!
>>
>>
>>
>>> I also did an analysis with Stockfish, and I am noticing one stran
On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 09:10 +0100, Joost 't Hart wrote:
> On 11/29/2010 02:44 AM, Matthew Twomey wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Good that it works a bit more to your liking now!
>
>
>
> > I also did an analysis with Stockfish, and I am noticing one strange
> > behavior. In the annotation, it's showing a
On 11/29/2010 02:44 AM, Matthew Twomey wrote:
Hi,
Good that it works a bit more to your liking now!
> I also did an analysis with Stockfish, and I am noticing one strange
> behavior. In the annotation, it's showing a Mate-in-X that is one more
> that it should be. For example, it's showing:
>
Joost,
I apologize for my slow reply here. I really appreciate all the work
you're putting into SCID! I've caught up on the thread, but I think this
may be the best email to base my reply on. I've downloaded and compiled
the latest SCID from CVS as of today (Nov 28th).
On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 16:01
Hi,
Is in cvs since yestereve. A '!?' nag mark is added for each
move in the game that is stronger than the engine-anticipated
best move; that is, respecting the delta from the informant values.
The (less optimal) engine variation is added in best-move-annotation only.
Cheers,
Joost.
-Oors
On 11/19/2010 04:01 PM, Joost 't Hart wrote:
> On 11/19/2010 03:03 AM, Joost 't Hart wrote:
>
> Hi. Still Scid time.
>
>> On 11/18/2010 07:38 PM, Matthew Twomey wrote:
>>> I grabbed this from SVN and compiled it. I tried annotating with with
>>> both Stockfish an Crafty.
>>>
>>> Stockfish UCI
>>> -
On 11/19/2010 03:03 AM, Joost 't Hart wrote:
> On 11/18/2010 07:38 PM, Matthew Twomey wrote:
>> I grabbed this from SVN and compiled it. I tried annotating with with
>> both Stockfish an Crafty.
>> Overall
>> ---
>> In general because the tweaking of the 327 score is so small I'm forced
>> to
On 11/19/2010 03:03 AM, Joost 't Hart wrote:
Hi. Still Scid time.
> On 11/18/2010 07:38 PM, Matthew Twomey wrote:
>> I grabbed this from SVN and compiled it. I tried annotating with with
>> both Stockfish an Crafty.
>>
>> Stockfish UCI
>> -
>> Annotation appears to function as designe
On 11/19/2010 03:03 AM, Joost 't Hart wrote:
Hi. Scid time.
> On 11/18/2010 07:38 PM, Matthew Twomey wrote:
>> I grabbed this from SVN and compiled it. I tried annotating with with
>> both Stockfish an Crafty.
>>
>> Stockfish UCI
>> -
>> Annotation appears to function as designed when
On 11/18/2010 07:38 PM, Matthew Twomey wrote:
> I grabbed this from SVN and compiled it. I tried annotating with with
> both Stockfish an Crafty.
>
> Stockfish UCI
> -
> Annotation appears to function as designed when "Annotate all moves" is
> enabled.
>
> Crafty 23.1
> ---
> Ab
I grabbed this from SVN and compiled it. I tried annotating with with
both Stockfish an Crafty.
Stockfish UCI
-
Annotation appears to function as designed when "Annotate all moves" is
enabled.
Crafty 23.1
---
About every other time I start a Crafty analysis, the annotation tex
Ok guys,
I am done. Give it a go!
And please report anything you do not like.
Cheers,
Joost.
On 10/25/2010 09:17 PM, Matthew Twomey wrote:
> Greetings all,
>
> A. I am a beginning/intermediate player and I've started using SCID
> to track my games. I like to use the blunder check
On 11/13/10 20:38, Joost 't Hart wrote:
Hi!
>
>> 3) UCI engines report a mate announcement (instead of a centipawn score)
>> if they see a mate.
>> In the old days Scid reported the (arbitrarily high) score of 327 for
>> any UCI mating line. Actually, internally this is still the case, except
>>
On 11/13/2010 12:31 PM, Joost 't Hart wrote:
> On 11/06/2010 06:33 PM, Alexander Wagner wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Back on this topic. Source of trouble is threefold:
>
> 3) UCI engines report a mate announcement (instead of a centipawn score)
> if they see a mate.
> In the old days Scid reported the (arb
On 11/06/2010 06:33 PM, Alexander Wagner wrote:
Hi,
Back on this topic. Source of trouble is threefold:
1) Scid's analysis did not handle stockfish' (undue?) mate announcements
correctly at all. This has been fixed already in cvs.
2) The analysis filter below is not the one you're looking for.
On Nov 6, 2010, at 13:00, "Joost 't Hart" wrote:
> On 11/06/2010 06:33 PM, Alexander Wagner wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> On 10/27/10 19:06, Daniel Karlsson wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>>
>>> Browsing through the source, I found a code snippet which appears to
>>> remove annotations for "dead" games. This mi
On 11/06/2010 06:33 PM, Alexander Wagner wrote:
Hi,
> On 10/27/10 19:06, Daniel Karlsson wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
>
>> Browsing through the source, I found a code snippet which appears to
>> remove annotations for "dead" games. This might be why Scid is not
>> adding annotations in your game.
>>
>> a
On 10/27/10 19:06, Daniel Karlsson wrote:
Hi!
> Browsing through the source, I found a code snippet which appears to
> remove annotations for "dead" games. This might be why Scid is not
> adding annotations in your game.
>
> analysis.tcl:
> # if the game is dead, and the score continues
Just for further information, I ran it through Crafty on 5 sec/move
analysis and it finds it right away. It also finds forced mates that I
missed every few moves after that (as embarrassing as that is, but hey I
was having time trouble!)
# Crafty output #
34. Bxf6+
({5:+
Greetings all,
A. I am a beginning/intermediate player and I've started using SCID
to track my games. I like to use the blunder check capability
but I'm a little confused about how it works. One thing I want
it to check for is missed opportunities for mate. I've been
23 matches
Mail list logo
