I ran a few of Morphy's games through just out of curiosity and the computer didn't think he mad a single brilliant of even good move...
Haven't seen any in any games so far, played by anyone
Haven't seen any in any games so far, played by anyone
Also wanted to add this since is similar topic...
the ordering of the "good, brilliant, blunder, etc" should be changed.
bunch the good stuff together
and the errors together.
the ordering of the "good, brilliant, blunder, etc" should be changed.
bunch the good stuff together
and the errors together.
I have often wondered how a computer would determine whether or not a given move was brilliant - or even good!
After all, it's all the same to the computer ... the search function just randomly swims around in phase space and latches on to the highest evaluation.
The best I've been able to come up with so far is that a move is good if it is not the best move at depth X, but is the best move at depth Y ... with, say, X = 10 ply and Y = 20 ply.
I will be most interested to learn how Thibault answers this question.
After all, it's all the same to the computer ... the search function just randomly swims around in phase space and latches on to the highest evaluation.
The best I've been able to come up with so far is that a move is good if it is not the best move at depth X, but is the best move at depth Y ... with, say, X = 10 ply and Y = 20 ply.
I will be most interested to learn how Thibault answers this question.
the analysis only cares about mistakes and blunders. it doesn't care about brilliancies nor should it - since the "best" move in any situation mathematically, positionally or tactically is just the best move, why would a computer consider a queen sacrifice in one game any more important than a space gaining maneuver in a different game if they both secure an edge? The only question the computer wants answered is : was there better, and if so, by how much? If it is outside its tolerance, it declares it a mistake
Why would a computer consider a queen sacrifice in one game any more important than a space gaining maneuver in different game if they both secure an edge?
Because that's what we want it to do. Chess is an art; positive punctuation exists to guide the human observer to the particularly fine points of any given game. Negative punctuation serves to highlight the sporting element: here's where he started going wrong.
Because that's what we want it to do. Chess is an art; positive punctuation exists to guide the human observer to the particularly fine points of any given game. Negative punctuation serves to highlight the sporting element: here's where he started going wrong.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.