Pascal Georges wrote:
Hi!
> Could it be that the "Add variation" button in the engine
> analysis is currently "broken"? It should add the current
> best line as a variation to the game score. However, this
> works if and only if I'm not on the last half move.
> Shouldn't "add variation" also be able to add the best
> continuation?
>
> This has always been Scid's behavior, a matter of
> discussion. If I'm right, Scid's internals does not allow
> to append var at the the end of the game, and the solution
> is to enter a comment "game could have continue with..."
> and enter the next moves as a main line.
Ahm, acutally I do enter a var at the end of a game. I just
go to the very last half move, hit ctrl-a repeat that last
half move and add the var. Or do you mean by "does not allow
for" that I have to reenter the last half move?
> I think it (c/sh)ould be done like I do my annotations in
> CC. On the last half move of my opponent I hit Ctrl-A to add
> a variation. Scid goes half a move back and I redo my
> opponents move and add my continuations afterwards. Looks
> like this:
>
> 18.Nxc3 Rad8
> ( 18...Rad8 19.Qd6 )
>
> This is what is done when annotating a game, and to show how the game
> could have continued.
Right. That way of variations is interesting for ongoing
games to add own analysis. In advanced chess these may also
come from an engine and this is where I stumbled accross it.
> Additionally, in case of engines that are capable of
> multi-pv analysis (Shredder, Fruit, Toga...), it might be
> worth to consider to add all currently displayed n mainlines
> as individual variations with their proper scores. If the
> user wishes to add only one he could easily reduce the
> number of vars to one.
>
> This would mean adding an extra button for "add all multi-pv lines",
> which is better than changing lines number.
Also an option of course. Agree.
> Volunteers ?
I'm not deep enough in that part to do it easily myself,
sorry.
> BTW: at this occasion I found that the engine analysis
> window for the xboard engine like crafty is still the old
> one. Shouldn't they also get the smaller new layout? (Just
> for consistency.)
>
> Yes, but some people liked to see the history of engine's thinking. So
> with an xboard engine, you get history, with an UCI engine you get N
> best lines. I also don't think it is useful to see history of engine's
> thinking, but now I only use UCI engines, so I don't really care.
Right. What I mainly refered to with GUI unification is:
--------------------------------------------------
Depth: 11 Nodes: 1558K (353 kn/s) Time: 4.41 s
--------------------------------------------------
1. 11 +2.35 <best line here>
--------------------------------------------------
compared to
--------------------------------------------------
Depth: 11 Nodes: 2519K (1063 kn/s)
Score: +1.81 Time: 2.37 seconds
1. <best line here>
--------------------------------------------------
<history>
--------------------------------------------------
I think also xboard should probably look like
--------------------------------------------------
Depth: 11 Nodes: 1558K (353 kn/s) Time: 4.41 s
--------------------------------------------------
1. 11 +2.35 <best line here>
<history>
--------------------------------------------------
Just a minor suggestion, though.
--
Kind regards, / War is Peace.
| Freedom is Slavery.
Alexander Wagner | Ignorance is Strength.
|
| Theory : G. Orwell, "1984"
/ In practice: USA, since 2001
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Scid-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scid-users
