On Nov 6, 2010, at 13:00, "Joost 't Hart" <joost.t.h...@planet.nl> 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 might be why Scid is not
>>> adding annotations in your game.
>>>
>>> analysis.tcl:
>>> # if the game is dead, and the score continues to go down,
>>> don't add any comment
>>> if { $prevscore> $::informant("++-")&& $tomove == "white" || \
>>> $prevscore< [expr 0.0 - $::informant("++-") ]&&
>>> $tomove == "black" } {
>>> set isBlunder 0
>>> }
>>>
>>> You could try changing Options> Game Information> Configure Informant
>>> Values and increase the threshold for The game is considered won "++-".
>>>
>> In Matthews given example this should of course be the source of
>> trouble. I wonder, however if it is sensible, given the fact that Scid
>> will not stop the analysis as such, but keep on. All the above does is
>> hindering Scid on telling the results.
>>
>
Strangely, even when I comment this part of this source out, it still doesn't
show the lines for an improved mate. It will continue to annotate better
non-mate moves (a +25 move instead of a +15 move for example) but if I make a
move that it sees as "M12" but it find a "M6" it still doesn't show it. I can
watch the engine window and see it find the "M6", but it doesn't annotate. I've
been using Crafty lately for analysis and this behavior has me wondering if
maybe in mate situations a non numerical evaluation is sent (eg M6, M12, ...
Etc.) If so, is it possible that Scid doesn't interpret "M6" as better than
"M12"?
At my level, seeing that I missed a more more direct mate is very important to
me, especially since I'm frequently running into time trouble in my games.
> Hm, not so much "hindering"; rather w-b...@neiu.edu> ask to stop shouting how
> bad things are going :-)
>
> And the analysis itself should not stop I feel; oppo could return us a
> favour...
>
>> Plus: in Matthews case he can't work around it easily as the dialogue
>> allows only up to 9.9 pawns to be defined for a won game. However, he's
>> up 25 or the like already several moves earlier.
Yes, as suggested I tried this without success, which led me to comment it out
(as per my above commentary).
>>
>
> Certainly the 9.9 is an arbitrary limitation to the dialog. We could
> expand to the ultimate 327.0 (meaning "I see a mate coming up"). This
> would allow the stronger side be corrected if he misses it.
>
Out of curiosity, not being deeply familiar with evaluation scores, do engines
score a mate in 5 higher than a mate in 20? This is partly what I'm looking
for. For example if I missed a mate in 5 and ended up in a KQ vs KR endgame, I
sure want to know about it even if the engine still sees the mate.
>> Should we therefore remove this condition to help more average players?
>> Any opinions?
>>
>
> I was not even aware Scid had this option, but I see the reasons for
> keeping it. We could make Scid add a polite statement at the point where
> he temporarily bails out...
>
> Cheers,
> Joost.
>
>> cu
>> Alexander
>>
Thanks!
-Matt------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Next 800 Companies to Lead America's Growth: New Video Whitepaper
David G. Thomson, author of the best-selling book "Blueprint to a
Billion" shares his insights and actions to help propel your
business during the next growth cycle. Listen Now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/SAP-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Scid-users mailing list
Scid-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scid-users
