Notice, moreover, that even of some of you are potential competitors, it can still be beneficial for both to exchange information.
I recall that billyrabar provided his huge Sveshnikov tree for free, as did Mark with his Caro Kann tree. (There are also a number of book-makers who share their work.) This is of course very generous, but I would guess that not everyone is comfortable with giving away his/her precious work for free.
So I thought the next-best thing would be to exchange information. If A has analyzed line a and needs information about line b and the reverse is true for B, why don't they just exchange their results? Or maybe C and D both have information about line c and agree to co-operate. Many ways of sharing information are conceivable. I would guess that some such co-operation among some forum members already takes place, but my thought was that the chances of reaching like-minded people are bigger if there is a public place to 'advertise'.
What do you think?
Perhaps the moderators would be willing to make a new forum group for this called "IDEA Exchange" and a new thread could be created for each submitted project. Maybe we start by picking an opening and have volunteers deeply analyze interesting positions and then share the results that we could export into our own master trees.
Personally, lately I have been looking at lines that come out of the King Fianchetto modern/pirc and scotch openings.
Should come up with a standard post template that would provide the information people need to evaluate if they want to use the tree. Perhaps:
ROOTS: <Paste the FEN positions here>
HARDWARE: (general description of your processor, memory)
ANALYSIS QUALITY SETTINGS: <Time> <and/or> <Depth>
TOTAL ANALYSIS TIME:
TOTAL POSITIONS IN TREE:
Then attach the project
and people could comment in each thread, with a unique thread for each project (if we get a sub-forum as suggested above)
I like this idea so much I think it deserves its own website! Might need to look into that.
Because I'm a CAE Engineer my analysis quality is much better than my practical chess skills.
So, If there would be same method for exchange, I would love to contribute everything a can give.
But organizing an working exchange basis for IDEA is not as simple matter.
Ideally there is database with root nodes. Additionally quality information's are required as mentioned below. I don't think hardware is big factor. But Ply depth and engine matter...
I'm looking forward to contribute
I must confess that I am a bit more serious about my OTB play. So, while I am willing to share my analysis with (almost) each person individually, I would feel much less comfortable sharing it with everyone.
I analyzed some opening lines which are not in my repertoire out of curiosity. You inspired me to share some of those.
how can share projects?
Engine: Houndini 1.5 32bit
Quality: min 17 ply
Hope that helps.
I couldn't upload the *.elm file because it is bigger than 6.000k (it is 16.000k)
> I couldn't upload the *.elm file because it is bigger than 6.000k (it is 16.000k)
Without the *.elm file, your tree cannot be seen by others. Have you tried compressing it using the tree utilities?
Ofcause I can splitt up the tree in smaller trees, but this would add extra work to me and to everbody how want to use his work.
Can the Aquarium team help on this?
For me an working exchange database would be more than a reason to buy the next version of Aquarium...
> If the idea of exchange should work the limit of 6.000k need to be increased for the exchange area.
The Forum administrators may not want to pay for the bandwidth required for the transfer of large files. Of course, there are plenty of sites which specialize in hosting files meant for transfer, you can upload there and give the link here.
But did you try to compress the file using Tree Utilities? I have found that .elm files of 100 MB come down to a few MB after compression.
If you split the file with 7z you could put all 3 together. the elm hsh and xml It shouldn't take a lot of time to do it.
Ok, after zipping the file it was still 7.500k (limit is 6.000k)
So I went the second way of creating a DragBox Account.
I don't think that the charing of projects will fly if this requires an external space.
The link should now contain all information in on 7z file.
If some one can try out this is working.
> If some one can try out this is working.
Yes, the tree is OK. Thank you, though I have given up playing the French!
The tree is optimised for learning the opening. So it is more wide than deep.
I'm a patzer and most of my oponents are also patzer. Therefore I'm also looking for moves what good players are unlikely to play.
On the other side it doesn't makes sense for me to look to deep into the lines, because there will be nearly always be a mistake of one of the players within the first 10 movers.
For advanced players this tree will be of limited value.
Ofcause you can alwasy use it as starting point to expand the lines evern further.
Do you also see my color coding and root nodes?
The n-values are rubbish. I guess this has to do with me intensive usage of the master tree. 126.000 should be correct size.
I don't know how to correct the n-values.
> I don't think that the charing of projects will fly if this requires an external space.
Once we have enough files shared, I'll see what I can do.
Alternately, I would be willing to discuss starting a new project and dividing up the work.
Without outlining my repertoire I am interested in d4 openings from White's perspective and the Sicilian. I could do some e4 as well, but it hasn't been my primary focus to date.
As to the lines: I can make one or more proposals if no-one else does. Let's see what others say.
In order to be organized, we probably have to exchange our emails, or do it everything publicly? I must admit I like the idea to share my analysis with the ones who share theirs.
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 dxc4 7. e4 g5 8. Bg3
b5 9. Be2 Bb7 10. O-O Nbd7 11. Ne5 Bg7 12. Nxf7 *
It is a pretty small tree; I am sure many of you have deeper analyses on this position than I do. If you are nevertheless interested, please have a look. Any comments are welcome.
If you would like to hear my assessment on what I consider to be the critical lines, feel free to ask, of course.
The basic problem is that there will be positions with incorrect evaluations (for example best move is 0.00 and there is a move with score 0.80 that would "never be expanded" by idea in a very large tree) which the user getting the tree will never know about them.
Without "watching" the tree expanding, you will never actually understand the position, how it failed, why... etc... Those are REALLY important information
For this to work, we need a "logging" utility, that would write down, the progress of the best line, how it changed, how many times, why... give details about the lines... etc.
Only with that information in hand you can continue to work on some else's tree.
Ofcourse if i know the other person, i trust his skills, then i would certainly go ahead and use the tree.
At least this is my opinion
If I were to share a tree, I would be willing to answer questions on which moves I consider to be most promising, which lines I think are critical, at which points the tree is more reliable and at which less so, etc. So I agree with you that one can easily be misled if one only follows the tree's main lines (based on eval).
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill