YAYP (yet another Yace problem) :-))

[Carlos Pesce]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Carlos Pesce at 28 July 2000 06:14:05:
Hi Dietter and all!
This is a piece of the Yace.log.
white ( 1): d2d4
white ( 1): d2d4
black ( 1): black
black ( 1): go
usetime = 10.43, mintime = 5.21 maxtime = 52.15 tl 298.00 ml 40
bm d7d5 count 699 flags 0
bm g8f6 count 2001 flags 2
bm c7c5 count 30 flags -2
bm e7e6 count 222 flags 2
bm f7f5 count 86 flags 0
bm d7d6 count 39 flags -2
bm c7c6 count 9 flags -2
bm b7b5 count 1 flags 0
bm e7e5 count 1 flags 0
bm g7g6 count 53 flags -2
bm b8c6 count 4 flags 0
0 0.126 -24 0bk: Ng8f6 [0]
egtb probes 0, found 0
move Ng8f6
black ( 1): Ng8f6
white ( 2): time 29946
white ( 2): otim 29972
white ( 2): c2c4
usetime = 10.41, mintime = 5.21 maxtime = 52.06 tl 297.46 ml 40
bm g7g6 count 768 flags 2
bm e7e6 count 568 flags -2
bm d7d6 count 73 flags -2
bm b7b6 count 5 flags 0
bm c7c6 count 17 flags -2
bm d7d5 count 3 flags 0
bm e7e5 count 31 flags 2
bm c7c5 count 114 flags -2
bm b8c6 count 1 flags 0
0 0.103 -12 0bk: e7e6 [0]
egtb probes 0, found 0
move e7e6
black ( 2): e7e6
Ive edited a start.pgn with this line:
d4 Nf6! c4 e6?
e7e6 count 568 flags -2
ive read in the readme that !! its superior than ! and i think that ! tis superior than ?
Whats wrong?
Thanks
Sorry for the joke
carlos Pesce

[Mogens Larsen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Mogens Larsen at 28 July 2000 08:38:51:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: YAYP (yet another Yace problem) ) geschrieben von: / posted by: Carlos Pesce at 28 July 2000 06:14:05:

white ( 2): c2c4
usetime = 10.41, mintime = 5.21 maxtime = 52.06 tl 297.46 ml 40
bm g7g6 count 768 flags 2
bm e7e6 count 568 flags -2
bm d7d6 count 73 flags -2
bm b7b6 count 5 flags 0
bm c7c6 count 17 flags -2
bm d7d5 count 3 flags 0
bm e7e5 count 31 flags 2
bm c7c5 count 114 flags -2
bm b8c6 count 1 flags 0
0 0.103 -12 0bk: e7e6 [0]
egtb probes 0, found 0
move e7e6
black ( 2): e7e6
Ive edited a start.pgn with this line:
d4 Nf6! c4 e6?
e7e6 count 568 flags -2
ive read in the readme that !! its superior than ! and i think that ! tis superior than ?

According to the readme:
"Moves with ?? will never be played.
Moves with ? will be played with a low probability, or perhaps never.
?! will lower the probability of playing.
!? will rise the probability of playing.
! will rise it much more.
When at least one move is present with !!, all other moves won't
be considered. When there is more than one move with !!, one of
those moves will be selected, all with equal prabability."
This means that moves marked with a ? can be played, but at a low probability or never. The count for e6 is rather high, which might explain the choice made. If you never want the move to be played use ??. Otherwise ? and ?? would be identical. The other possibility is to mark the moves you want to select randomly between with !!. The NAG's are very sound IMHO and too much nagging makes for boring chess )).
Best wishes...
Mogens

[Gábor Szõts]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Gábor Szõts at 28 July 2000 10:22:34:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: YAYP (yet another Yace problem) ) geschrieben von: / posted by: Carlos Pesce at 28 July 2000 06:14:05:
Hi fellows,
The title stands for 'I'm Fed Up With Abbreviations'.
There are some messages which I simply don't understand because of the unexplained abbreviations that are used in them.
May I have a suggestion: if there is an expression often cited in a message (e.g. NAG), use an abbreviation if you like, but explain it at its first occurrence. IMHO (=in my humble opinion) that is an acceptable compromise.
Best wishes,
Gábor

[Carlos Pesce]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Carlos Pesce at 28 July 2000 17:29:06:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: IFUWA geschrieben von: / posted by: Gábor Szõts at 28 July 2000 10:22:34:

Hi fellows,
The title stands for 'I'm Fed Up With Abbreviations'.
There are some messages which I simply don't understand because of the unexplained abbreviations that are used in them.
May I have a suggestion: if there is an expression often cited in a message (e.g. NAG), use an abbreviation if you like, but explain it at its first occurrence. IMHO (=in my humble opinion) that is an acceptable compromise.
Best wishes,
Gábor

Hi, Gabor!
Excuse for the joke, ive learned this "stuffs" in the chess forums along Internet.
Best regards
Carlos Pesce

[Gábor Szõts]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Gábor Szõts at 31 July 2000 08:46:33:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: IFUWA geschrieben von: / posted by: Carlos Pesce at 28 July 2000 17:29:06:

Hi fellows,
The title stands for 'I'm Fed Up With Abbreviations'.
There are some messages which I simply don't understand because of the unexplained abbreviations that are used in them.
May I have a suggestion: if there is an expression often cited in a message (e.g. NAG), use an abbreviation if you like, but explain it at its first occurrence. IMHO (=in my humble opinion) that is an acceptable compromise.
Best wishes,
Gábor

Hi, Gabor!
Excuse for the joke, ive learned this "stuffs" in the chess forums along Internet.
Best regards
Carlos Pesce

Hi Carlos,
Your message was only an 'a propos' for my complaint. I am about to construct an abbreviation dictionary anyway.
Best wishes,
Gábor