Anyone have any advice?
How much time do you give it for the whole game?
I was at the point of buying Aquarium until reading about this limitation in the analysis. I think it is quite a serious bug for beginners like myself who want to analysis the whole game. A shame, because Aquarium otherwise seems good for analysis.
I hope that the Fritz 11 / Rybka combination does not suffer from this problem (unfortunetly the free Arena does not offer a Blunder check).
> I'm setting it to manual evaluation
you better use the first tab (the automatic) , not because manual is bad, but i have not used it , dont know the behaviour and i cannot help there :)
Every move is analyzed but not every move has variations.
Only moves that change the evaluation of the position have variations.
And when i say change the evaluation of the position i dont mean from +3 to +7. This is from lost to lost.
I dont know if there is an internal thershold on which moves to extend and which note.
I also think that game analysis can be improved.
If I understand correctly, it seems that once the score difference gets over say +3 or +4 it will not analysis (or show blunders) anymore ??
An example - in a game both sides play is perfect, until I blunder a rook or queen at move 25, then will analysis enable me to see further blunders of (for example) +- 1 at move 70 ?
(this scenerio is possible (and very helpful) in example Fritz 5.32, etc. This is hugely important for beginners)
The analysis of these games is the same whether it is "automatic" analysis versus manual. Now I can, using Infinite analysis, go move by move and analyze these endgame scenarios myself, but this is far more tedious than necessary.
> I NEED to be shown blunders that caused a loss
This is always shown.
I think the philosophy behind the approach used in Aquarium is that you learn most from the moves which change the outcome of a game. Studying those positions deeply will advance your game faster than spreading your time over every blunder you make.
> caused me to lose a won position, because I took a QK vs K position and incorrectly moved the king into a stalemate.
You say it caused you to lose a won position, but a stalemate is a draw. Anyway, a blunder that leads to a draw from a won position should always be annotated. Was it not annotated in this case?
But to be clear, yes the game in question was 77 moves. Around move 25 the score rybka indicates is that I am up 450 centipawns (-4.5 evaluation for white - I was playing black). At this point not a single move is annotated from that point forward, only evaluation scores are indicated. I have hand analyzed using Rybka's infinite analysis from move 25 through the end of the game and there are cases (two blatant ones where I turned a mate in X into a -4 or -5 evaluation by blundering, and another blatant one where I turned a mate in 1 into a stalemate due to blundering) where I made massive blunders, and nothing is annotated. I agree Dadi that the study of positions where you blundered causing a loss is of vital importance. I also think, in this case, study of the positions (which i've started using infinite analysis) where you made moves which significantly increased the duration of the game, are important too. Around move 30 or 35, I had mate in 7. The game ended on move 77 in a stalemate... That is a VERY poorly played endgame by me, and I need to understand why.
Buffos: In my opinion you should be able to have "blunders" shown, based on the settings in the show blunders dialog box as to what a "blunder" is (is it a 200 centipawn eval difference? is it 300 centipawns? That configured value should be what is used to determine a blunder). Thus for an entire game, no matter what the evaluation of the position is, if a blunder is made, it should be annotated with rybka's evaluation of the line that should have been played. These analysis are invaluable for a player who is newer to chess. I have understood how to play chess at a basic level for years, but I have never done any study or any work at trying to improve until the last few weeks. Thus for me, it is invaluable learning to be able to see where I made mistakes, replay the line(s) that Rybka, or some other engine suggests, and see what I could have done to play better.
I think I will still buy Aquarium, and hope that the problem is addressed in the future, but it did make me think twice about perhaps buying Fritz 11 GUI instead.
I'm now using Deep Rybka 3 human inside Fritz GUI for Deep Position Analysis
and I'm using HIARCS for full game analysis
> In my opinion you should be able to have "blunders" shown
i dont think we disagree at all. I was saying exactly the same thing. :)
I some time find myself prefering the old game analysis method used in CA. But i guess this is a totally different story.
> turned a mate in 1 into a stalemate due to blundering
This one should have been annotated with a variation, as all moves affecting the outcome of the game.
Has anyone tried Fritz 11 GUI / Rybka for a Blunder check or Game Analysis in this situation - same problems ?
The above post talked about rybka not sending variations when score is big.
But other engines that have not reported this bug should be able to annotate whatever the evaluation is.
IMO, game analysis feature must be definetly improved as soon as possible: one of the clear advantages of using Aquarium is for analysis purposes, and only IDeA seems to be working properly (might be because we have nothing to compare with). Graphical annotation, chart's visualization when blunder checking, etc etc are some other features that need to be revisited.
> Graphical annotation, chart's visualization when blunder checking, etc etc are some other features that need to be revisited.
we totally agree.
I guess I (and other beginners) have to buy Fritz 11 GUI + HIARCS 12 package for whole game and blunder analysis (not in itself bad!)
It seems that Rybka 3 has been developed solely for engine vs engine players (and those players who never make mistakes or play against people who never make mistakes of the order of + or - 3). The masses who use it for analysis have not been catered for. This is a mistake and goes against what Vas said he was trying to do.
I'm pretty disappointed
However, although I agree with the fact that Aquarium is a very good and very different tool for analysis, it turns out that most of us find it very powerful tool for advanced users and really difficult one for simple purposes as analyzing a game, check blunders or just have a chart that let you easily know how the trends of the game have gone (I am not talking about the lots of bugs discovered by users who have paid to use Aquarium but have not been paid for discovering them; fortunately Aquarium's team really seems to be wotking on fixing them and they are releasing updates every "two" weeks)
I am not still disappointed because I have decided to give one more chance to Aquarium, but too much time invested by this moment....
The advantage of a simple blundercheck where you specify a delta for ? (and ideally a second delta for ?? as with babaschess) and a depth or time is that you know exactly what you are getting.
I hope these two features (and of course the database support) are improved, because I very much like the interface.
back in the early beta-testing days I've sent the same remark to the gui designers:
> Just reminding you that game analysis in beta5 still gives only annotations when a player's advantage is less than about 3 pawns,
> even if we are setting the parameter to 7 pawns... hoping you won't forget to have this corrected !
and got the reply:
> This will be rather difficult...
I still fail to see what could be so difficult about it :-)
it's partly the reason why I switched back to chessbase gui, a second reason being the huge complexity of the aquarium gui... :-(
The problem seems to be with Rybka though. I use Rybka in Chessbase gui and it still won't show the variations when the score is plus or minus 3
> I use Rybka in Chessbase gui and it still won't show the variations when the score is plus or minus 3
Rybka doesn't show more than 2 plys when eval is + - 5. See Rybka forum for further details.
None of these bugs / features have been fixed / implemented in any update since Aquarium release; maybe this is the right time.
Please, fix it.
It needs serveral updates to become a serious GUI.
I found the same issues on my system: Deep Rybka 4 Aquarium (4.0.5).
Sorry to say that, but this is very annoying ...
It's very important for me to get a "full game" analysis, not only half the story.
To me this does not look as a Rybka issue, similar behaviour with other engines, eg. stockfish: game analysis stops after evaluation around +/- 5.00.
Deep Rybka 4 960 supports Fischer Random.
I had a clear win with KQN vs K and only got a stalemate because of a blunder.
Aq "blunder check" nor "game analysis" found the mistake.
Analysis stopped after winning position was reached not taking the user defined threshold (99999) into account.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill