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 > ----------- > About every other time I start a Crafty analysis, the annotation text > doesn't show the score, instead it just shows an Mx value (e.g. M1, > M6, ...etc). However it does this in non-mating positions. For example, > it indicates all moved it's suggesting are "M1" moves. Here is an > example: > > 1.e4= > Crafty v23.1:14:M1 > > (14:M1 1.Nf3 Nc6 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.e4 e5 4.Bb5 Bb4) > > So this is obviously not a mate situation. Once it starts doing this, if > I exit SCID and restart it, the issue is usually resolved, but sometimes > I have to exit and restart a couple of times.
Ouch, this is a bug in my code. Actually, I did not test anything with crafty, and I made a lazy (and false) assumption in translating the engine scoring to Mx format. I will correct this. And I will conduct some trial runs with crafty as well. A detail: Are you sure that the score in the variation goes in front of the move 1.Nf3? This would be something I cannot explain. I would expect 1.Nf3 <score> Nc6 etc... > Another strange behavior is that sometimes it's suggesting moves that > actually have a score *lower* that it's analysis of the move that was > actually mode. For example it suggests a line that is +3.2 when it's > evaluation of the actual move that was made is +3.6. Can you be a bit more specific? Just dump a bit of annotated PGN if you have it available. What you tell us would indicate a bug (which is different from the one above), but I have no idea where to start checking. > Overall > ------- > In general because the tweaking of the 327 score is so small I'm forced > to annotate all moves in order to see the improved mate lines (I think > it's set to a one "centi-pawn" penalty for each additional move when > comparing mates?). > > At my level, I'm really only interested in 1+/- (or greater) score > changes. What I was hoping for was to annotate a game and have all moves > that are +/- 1 annotated, but then also all "better" mate lines (such as > a mate in 3 opportunity, when my move was a mate in 6). Got your point. You are looking for a situation in which a less optimal mate variation corresponds to at least 100 cp in normal score delta. But, given the current way of working, we would need a lot of score "bandwidth" for mate evaluations alone. I was not "there" when the value of 327 for "mate" was chosen, so I have no idea why it is this value. The only thing I can think of is that +/-32767 (cp) is the maximum value that can be packed in a 16 bit (signed!) number, so someone took a value close to that limit. All depends on the maximum cp value that a UCI engine can spit without seeing a mate. That would indicate the bandwidth. If this value is less than - let's say - 227, we easily would have headroom for mate-in-100, using 100 cp per move. When testing with stockfish, I cannot remember the beast scoring more than somewhere around 120, until it spotted the mate. There could be another natural limit at 127, but I have no clue about reality... On the other hand, I do not know if we can - Scid internally - go to a much higher integer value for a mate-in-1 as well. Why restrict to 16-bits? Certainly there are other (and more robust) possible solutions to this problem that do not base on cp translation at all (although having a common uci/non-uci "evaluation interface" makes things a lot simpler indeed). Maybe we should go that way, yet that is not how things were designed up to now. > Would it make sense to have a configurable value used as the amount > subtracted from the 327.50 mate score? This way I could set it to 1.00 > (or match it with my threshold setting) so that shorter mates will be > annotated along with all the other moves meeting the threshold setting. Hm, see the reasoning above. This is a too error prone, I think. BTW (and this is not to work around the scid problem): I feel you should not be too nervous about missing a mate in 3 in a far endgame, and doing it in 6 instead. This bit is much harder to improve than the other parts of your game. Remember that the time you are short at the end of the game was spoilt in the beginning. > That was sort of hard to put into words, so if I've been unclear on what > I mean here, please let me know. Thanks for your help. Although I did a lot of testing myself, I am sure there should be more problems in there. Get them! Cheers, Joost. > Thanks, > > -Matt > > On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 01:33 +0100, Joost 't Hart wrote: >> 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 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 >>> working with one particular game where there is a mate in three >>> opportunity on move 34, which I missed. I'd like the blunder >>> check to point this out, but it doesn't. If I leave the engine >>> running (infinite analysis) and click on the move just before >>> 34, it instantly finds it - but while annotating, it doesn't. >>> >>> Some details: >>> >>> 1. PGN attached - the mate in three I'm trying to catch starts on move >>> 34 with 34.Nxf6 >>> >>> 2. I'm using Stockfish 191 as the engine (although I've tried a few >>> others with the same result) >>> >>> 3. Initially I was using 5 seconds per move as the annotate setting, but >>> I've also tried 60 seconds per move - which didn't help. >>> >>> I'm wondering if it has an issue dealing with the relative "score" of >>> mate versus some high numeric value or something? Thoughts anyone or any >>> idea why this isn't working or what I might be doing wrong? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -Matt >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports >> standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2& L3. >> Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great >> experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/msIE9-sfdev2dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Scid-users mailing list >> Scid-users@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scid-users > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today http://p.sf.net/sfu/msIE9-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Scid-users mailing list Scid-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scid-users
