| |
Main
Date: 22 Jul 2006 00:42:31
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Use of ? and ?? in annotations.
|
If one annotates a game where a player and misses a simple checkmate, or
fails to spot a blunder was made by his opponent, would you k his
move with a question k?
You *can* argue the move he played was poor if there was a much better
one available.
But you could also argue that if the move that was played did not make
is position any poorer, then it is not such a bad move.
In the following game I (g8wrb on ICC) won as black, but I failed to
take a number of opportunitities which could have seen a much quicker
and easier win.
Clearly 20. Qg4?
is a mistake by my opponent as he allowed me to fork his two rooks with
the knight, which I did. with
20...Nd3
But then he plays another poor move
21 Bd2?
But my response is poor too, as
21...Nxc1
gains me one of the rooks I had forked, but there was a much better
move I did not play. (21...Qxf2+ 22.Kh1 Qxd2 would have been much better).
Likewise
31...e5
did not result in any loss of material but 31...Qc3 would have resulted
in getting a pawn home a lot quicker than I did. In fact, I missed
numerous opportunities to get the pawn home, finally seeing how in
38...Qb3+. But the opportunity was there for about 5 moves. Would you
k all those moves with a '?' or even '??' if I failed to gain a
significant advantage that was present?
Here is the game - rather embarrassing I made such a big deal out of
winning a game I should have won a lot earlier.
[Event "ICC 20 2"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2006.07.21"]
[Round "-"]
[White "badillo31"]
[Black "g8wrb"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ICCResult "White resigns"]
[WhiteElo "1392"]
[BlackElo "1282"]
[Opening "QGD Slav defense"]
[ECO "D10"]
[NIC "SL.01"]
[Time "17:34:51"]
[TimeControl "1200+2"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Bf5 4. Nf3 e6 5. g3 Nf6 6. Bg2 Bb4 7. cxd5 cxd5 8.
O-O h6 9. Ne5 O-O 10. Bd2 Nc6 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Re1 Rc8 13. e4 Bxc3 14. Bxc3
Bxe4 15. Bxe4 Nxe4 16. Bb4 c5 17. dxc5 Nxc5 18. Rc1 Qb6 19. a3 Rfd8 20. Qg4
Nd3 21. Bd2 Nxc1 22. Bxh6 g6 23. Bxc1 d4 24. b4 d3 25. Bb2 Rc2 26. Bf6 d2
27. Rd1 Rc1 28. Bxd8 Rxd1+ 29. Qxd1 Qxd8 30. Kf1 Qd3+ 31. Kg1 e5 32. f3 Qe3+
33. Kg2 f5 34. h4 f4 35. g4 Kf7 36. a4 Kg7 37. b5 Qe1 38. Qb3 Qe2+ 39. Kh3
Qf1+ 40. Kh2 d1=Q 41. Qxd1 Qxd1 42. a5 Qd2+ 43. Kh3 Qxa5 44. h5 Qxb5 45.
hxg6 Qf1+ 46. Kh4 Qxf3 47. Kg5 {White resigns} 0-1
--
Dave K MCSE.
MCSE = Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert.
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
for a couple of months only. Later set it manually.
http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2006 07:54:25
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Use of ? and ?? in annotations.
|
? = Bad move
?? = instantly losing move
?! = Bad move but has potential if other side doesn't refute it
!? = Interesting
! = Annotator loves the move (might be best)
!! = Clearly best, or what the annotator was hoping he could play.
Like 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Qf3!! is not the best move, but if I'm allowed
to play it, it feels like a !! so that's what I give it since I know it was
not expected in most cases.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2006 07:52:57
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Use of ? and ?? in annotations.
|
So you've been annotating my games, I see.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2006 18:30:56
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod)
Subject: Re: A definition of "?" & "??" / Re: Use of ? and ?? in annotations.
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod) <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > For strong moves one may use two kinds of "rybka !".
> > One may look like this:
> >
> > 23... Rc8 !7p
> >
> > meaning that the 6 ply deep analysis interprets 23... Rc8
> > as a move leading to a disadvantage, while 7 ply and deeper
> > analysis considers 23... Rc8 as giving an advantage.
> >
> > The other annotation would be:
> >
> > 18.... Bb7 !7m
> >
> > meaning that the 6 ply deep analysis considers
> > other moves as better, while the 7 ply and deeper
> > analysis considers 18... Bb7 to be the best.
>
> That's a nice idea. It's very dependent on the engine's search,
> algorithm though: search extensions and quiescence may mean that,
> while iterative deepening is doing a seven-ply search, it might
> actually be looking much, much deeper than that. I wonder if there's
> a way of fixing this?
>
>
> Dave.
The better the engines get, the more they will
agree on which moves give/cause advantage/disadvantage.
But the numerical depth critical index will indeed vary from
one engine to another, depending on their approach and
on the proportion of the brute strength versus
strategical insight.
Thus this kind of engine dependent annotation
would tell us both about the particular game itself
AND would give us an insight into different
kind of thinking, when multiple annotations
were provided (from different advanced engines).
We would have a view on the thinking at the
critical junctures.
Regards,
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2006 07:43:27
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod)
Subject: Re: A definition of "?" & "??" / Re: Use of ? and ?? in annotations.
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod) <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Let me propose once and forever an objective definition:
> >
> > ? -- a move which loses 1/2 of a point
> > ?? -- a move which loses the whole 1 point.
>
> I don't like that.
I am sorry :-)
> It makes it impossible to k a move as ? in the
> opening or early middlegame, for example.
I realized this. Nevertheless my definion can serve
as a simple and clear guidance. Yes, one may award
an evaluation symbol mistakenly. It's ok.
> It also means that in a position like wKc6 Qh7 bKa8,
> a move like Qa7 can only be given ? when
> it deserves at least ?? and possibly even ??????????.
Not really. It should be annotated as a (ms), meaning
"mouse slip".
Once you make up your mind about the definition
then the old "deserve" doesn't apply. In your view
(which perhaps is prevailing) the annotation ? or ??
should reflect our disdain with a move. It is more
important to reflect the objective consequences
of the move.
> If we want formal definitions, I quite like the Nunn convention
> for endgames. That is:
>
> ! An only move: any alternative forfeits the theoretical result.
> (Not used for the only legal move.)
> !! A particularly beautiful or instructive ! move.
> !? A move that makes it easier to achieve the TR.
> ?! A move that makes it harder to achieve the TR.
> ? A move that forfeits the TR.
> ?? A particularly crass ? move.
>
> But that only really applies to the endgame. In particular, it means
> that a bad move in the opening could only really be given ?! as it
> would be hard to say, in most cases, that the move had genuinely
> tipped the game into a loss.
>
> For general positions, I think one can only use annotation ks
> subjectively.
For strong moves one may use two kinds of "rybka !".
One may look like this:
23... Rc8 !7p
meaning that the 6 ply deep analysis interprets 23... Rc8
as a move leading to a disadvantage, while 7 ply and deeper
analysis considers 23... Rc8 as giving an advantage.
The other annotation would be:
18.... Bb7 !7m
meaning that the 6 ply deep analysis considers
other moves as better, while the 7 ply and deeper
analysis considers 18... Bb7 to be the best.
The quality of such annotations would
depend on the quality of "rybka" (or whatever
the engine is).
(In the above examples the evaluations
after 5 or less plies don't matter).
Regards,
Wlod
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jul 2006 17:01:01
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: A definition of "?" & "??" / Re: Use of ? and ?? in annotations.
|
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod) <[email protected] > wrote:
> For strong moves one may use two kinds of "rybka !".
> One may look like this:
>
> 23... Rc8 !7p
>
> meaning that the 6 ply deep analysis interprets 23... Rc8
> as a move leading to a disadvantage, while 7 ply and deeper
> analysis considers 23... Rc8 as giving an advantage.
>
> The other annotation would be:
>
> 18.... Bb7 !7m
>
> meaning that the 6 ply deep analysis considers
> other moves as better, while the 7 ply and deeper
> analysis considers 18... Bb7 to be the best.
That's a nice idea. It's very dependent on the engine's search,
algorithm though: search extensions and quiescence may mean that,
while iterative deepening is doing a seven-ply search, it might
actually be looking much, much deeper than that. I wonder if there's
a way of fixing this?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Revolting Puzzle (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like an intriguing conundrum
but it'll turn your stomach and it's
perfect for your grandparents!
|
| |
Date: 25 Jul 2006 19:17:43
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod)
Subject: A definition of "?" & "??" / Re: Use of ? and ?? in annotations.
|
Let me propose once and forever an objective definition:
? -- a move which loses 1/2 of a point
?? -- a move which loses the whole 1 point.
Annotation ? or ?? may be hard to justify
formally under certain circumstances.
Regards,
Wlod
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jul 2006 11:14:41
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: A definition of "?" & "??" / Re: Use of ? and ?? in annotations.
|
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod) <[email protected] > wrote:
> Let me propose once and forever an objective definition:
>
> ? -- a move which loses 1/2 of a point
> ?? -- a move which loses the whole 1 point.
I don't like that. It makes it impossible to k a move as ? in the
opening or early middlegame, for example. It also means that in a
position like wKc6 Qh7 bKa8, a move like Qa7 can only be given ? when
it deserves at least ?? and possibly even ??????????.
If we want formal definitions, I quite like the Nunn convention
for endgames. That is:
! An only move: any alternative forfeits the theoretical result.
(Not used for the only legal move.)
!! A particularly beautiful or instructive ! move.
!? A move that makes it easier to achieve the TR.
?! A move that makes it harder to achieve the TR.
? A move that forfeits the TR.
?? A particularly crass ? move.
But that only really applies to the endgame. In particular, it means
that a bad move in the opening could only really be given ?! as it
would be hard to say, in most cases, that the move had genuinely
tipped the game into a loss.
For general positions, I think one can only use annotation ks
subjectively.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Moistened Cat (TM): it's like a cuddly
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ pet but it's moist!
|
| |
Date: 24 Jul 2006 10:26:01
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Use of ? and ?? in annotations.
|
Dave (from the UK) <[email protected] > wrote:
> If one annotates a game where a player and misses a simple
> checkmate, or fails to spot a blunder was made by his opponent,
> would you k his move with a question k?
I would, yes. Or perhaps with ?!, depending on how obvious I thought
it was.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Fluorescent Peanut (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ roasted nut but it'll hurt your eyes!
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jul 2006 02:50:31
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Use of ? and ?? in annotations.
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Dave (from the UK) <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>If one annotates a game where a player and misses a simple
>>checkmate, or fails to spot a blunder was made by his opponent,
>>would you k his move with a question k?
>
>
> I would, yes. Or perhaps with ?!, depending on how obvious I thought
> it was.
>
>
> Dave.
>
Thank you for your reply.
dave
|
|
