These are chess annotation symbols that are applied by human annotators. (Books) Can these symbols be incorporated into computer analysis? I have often thought of Stockfish as being the great 'Kibitzer', as it will be there only to show how you could have played better, as human kibitzers do. - '??' blunder.
Is a '!!' after a move too difficult to program in?- or is too subjective? - :]
To indicate Positions or Conditions
= The position is equal
+= White has a slight advantage
=+ Black has a small advantage
+/- White has a clear advantage
-/+ Black has a clear advantage
+- White has a winning advantage
-+ Black has a winning advantage
? The position is unclear
# Checkmate
- Check
++ Double check
To indicate how good the move was
! Good move
!! Brilliant move, also called Excellent move, or difficult to find move
? Bad move
?? Blunder
!? Interesting move
?! Dubious move
These are chess annotation symbols that are applied by human annotators. (Books) Can these symbols be incorporated into computer analysis? I have often thought of Stockfish as being the great 'Kibitzer', as it will be there only to show how you could have played better, as human kibitzers do. - '??' blunder.
Is a '!!' after a move too difficult to program in?- or is too subjective? - :]
To indicate Positions or Conditions
= The position is equal
+= White has a slight advantage
=+ Black has a small advantage
+/- White has a clear advantage
-/+ Black has a clear advantage
+- White has a winning advantage
-+ Black has a winning advantage
? The position is unclear
# Checkmate
+ Check
++ Double check
To indicate how good the move was
! Good move
!! Brilliant move, also called Excellent move, or difficult to find move
? Bad move
?? Blunder
!? Interesting move
?! Dubious move
In annotated games, I think !! is reserved for moves that are unusual, counterintutitive, and hard-to-find.
A great example is Shirov's Bh3 sacrifice. Almost no human would consider this move:
https://lichess.org/wfVtDYyw#93
To an engine this is pointless, because the engine always sees the best move (if you let it run long enough). But !! would be hard to program, I think because it's very subjective on what move is "hard to find"
In annotated games, I think !! is reserved for moves that are unusual, counterintutitive, and hard-to-find.
A great example is Shirov's Bh3 sacrifice. Almost no human would consider this move:
https://lichess.org/wfVtDYyw#93
To an engine this is pointless, because the engine always sees the best move (if you let it run long enough). But !! would be hard to program, I think because it's very subjective on what move is "hard to find"
@greysensei said in #6:
@vivaangoyal22 Chess.com brilliant moves are a gimmick. They award a brilliant move to every pseudo sacrifice. Like the typical Bxf7+ when your knight on f3 is pinned by the Bishop on g4 and that bishop is undefended is considered a brilliant move every time.
My opponent hung his rook. I took the undefended rook. Chess.crash thought that moment of pure genius deserved two exclamation points.
@greysensei said in #6:
> @vivaangoyal22 Chess.com brilliant moves are a gimmick. They award a brilliant move to every pseudo sacrifice. Like the typical Bxf7+ when your knight on f3 is pinned by the Bishop on g4 and that bishop is undefended is considered a brilliant move every time.
My opponent hung his rook. I took the undefended rook. Chess.crash thought that moment of pure genius deserved two exclamation points.
@vivaangoyal22 said in #1:
- Stockfish NEVER shows your brilliant or great (! and !!) which is just sad...
It can be done: https://support.chess.com/article/2965-how-are-moves-classified-what-is-a-blunder-or-brilliant-and-etc But like many computer annotations, it won't always makes sense to people.
@vivaangoyal22 said in #1:
> 1. Stockfish NEVER shows your brilliant or great (! and !!) which is just sad...
It can be done: https://support.chess.com/article/2965-how-are-moves-classified-what-is-a-blunder-or-brilliant-and-etc But like many computer annotations, it won't always makes sense to people.
Maybe a different system for brilliancies?
Maybe a different system for brilliancies?
How do you define brilliancy? There is definition for it. And if you come up with one can also describe a method for recognizing it by a computer program.
Chess.com version fulfills latter requirement. But hardly every removal of guard tactic is what is usually considered a brilliant move
How do you define brilliancy? There is definition for it. And if you come up with one can also describe a method for recognizing it by a computer program.
Chess.com version fulfills latter requirement. But hardly every removal of guard tactic is what is usually considered a brilliant move
Stockfish: -5.5 because I didn't play the best move.
My opponent: Plays a decent(but not perfect) move
Stockfish: +125
Me: Blunders a pawn
My opponent: gets the pawn
Stockfish: M20 for my opponent
My opponent: blunders the queen
Stockfish: M1
Get your calculations straight, stockfish!
Stockfish assumes that we will play the best move. The point system needs to be a range!
Stockfish: -5.5 because I didn't play the best move.
My opponent: Plays a decent(but not perfect) move
Stockfish: +125
Me: Blunders a pawn
My opponent: gets the pawn
Stockfish: M20 for my opponent
My opponent: blunders the queen
Stockfish: M1
Get your calculations straight, stockfish!
Stockfish assumes that we will play the best move. The point system needs to be a range!
It would be good to have seperate symbols for tactical mistakes and positional mistakes.
It would be good to have seperate symbols for tactical mistakes and positional mistakes.