I really appreciate the opportunity to learn from my numerous mistakes with the help of the “computer analysis” function. Sometimes, however, I wish the engine would also highlight good and perhaps even excellent moves so that I wouldn't be completely demotivated by its analyses. Or maybe it's already doing that and I just need to play better...
It does not. The problem is that unlike a mistake which can be easily defined as a move leading to significantly worse evaluation than the best possible move (known to the engine), it's in fact quite difficult to propose an exact and objective definition of a good (or excellent) move. And you would need a definition that can be used to identify such moves in software.
@mkubecek provides such good answers.
@Oma_Inge_aus_Bottrop maybe if the engine's evaluation number stays the same or moves further in your favor then that would indicate you made a good move.
@Oma_Inge_aus_Bottrop maybe if the engine's evaluation number stays the same or moves further in your favor then that would indicate you made a good move.
Mathematically speaking, you can never improve the evaluation in your position. You can only make it worse.
As mkubecek said, mistakes are easy to spot: the evaluation has changed with your move (it is now worse than before).
When the evaluation goes up for you, it is not because of your move, but it happened on the opponent's move (their mistake).
"!" or "!!" moves tell us more about how difficult it is for humans to find them - which is very hard for a computer to judge. Just because it is a single move that keeps the evaluation is surely not enough. Often, those are moves that are non-obvious to the human eye, or somewhat counter intuitive, again, pretty hard to put into an algorithm.
TLDR: Mistakes are very easy to spot, but good moves lack a meaningful measure.
As mkubecek said, mistakes are easy to spot: the evaluation has changed with your move (it is now worse than before).
When the evaluation goes up for you, it is not because of your move, but it happened on the opponent's move (their mistake).
"!" or "!!" moves tell us more about how difficult it is for humans to find them - which is very hard for a computer to judge. Just because it is a single move that keeps the evaluation is surely not enough. Often, those are moves that are non-obvious to the human eye, or somewhat counter intuitive, again, pretty hard to put into an algorithm.
TLDR: Mistakes are very easy to spot, but good moves lack a meaningful measure.
@mkubecek said in #2:
> It does not. The problem is that unlike a mistake which can be easily defined as a move leading to significantly worse evaluation than the best possible move (known to the engine), it's in fact quite difficult to propose an exact and objective definition of a good (or excellent) move. And you would need a definition that can be used to identify such moves in software.
I get it, but if chess.com can do that, we can also do the same. Its not like we are living with neanderthals is it? Its the same 21st century.
> It does not. The problem is that unlike a mistake which can be easily defined as a move leading to significantly worse evaluation than the best possible move (known to the engine), it's in fact quite difficult to propose an exact and objective definition of a good (or excellent) move. And you would need a definition that can be used to identify such moves in software.
I get it, but if chess.com can do that, we can also do the same. Its not like we are living with neanderthals is it? Its the same 21st century.
@AyaanshGaur12 said in #5:
> I get it, but if chess.com can do that, we can also do the same. Its not like we are living with neanderthals is it? Its the same 21st century.
It's not about the century or neanderthals, the difference is a completely different philosophy of the two websites.
chess-com is a commercial site with lots of "bells and whistles", i.e. pseudofeatures which don't really work the way they pretend to but look cool and attract people who do not bother to think too deep. As long as a feature makes the site more attractive and promises to make the site look more cool, it's welcome, no matter if it actually works or makes sense. Marking good, great, excellent and whatever moves often enough makes users feel happy and likely to stay and play on. There was a nice blog recently about these "gamification" practices: lichess.org/@/SayChessClassical/blog/are-online-chess-players-trapped-pigeons/JPMnLrTC
Lichess, on the other hand, is not a commercial site that would need to attract as many users as possible (ideally, paying users) to generate as much profit as possible; thus they only implement features they deem actually useful and worth the effort. Its interface is simpler, more focused on the practical aspects and less on cheap effects. For the same reason, the analysis focuses on actually useful information rather than making users feel great about themselves. If that's not enough "21st century" for you and you prefer the chess-com approach, maybe lichess is not really the best place for you. Personally, I very much prefer the way things work here.
> I get it, but if chess.com can do that, we can also do the same. Its not like we are living with neanderthals is it? Its the same 21st century.
It's not about the century or neanderthals, the difference is a completely different philosophy of the two websites.
chess-com is a commercial site with lots of "bells and whistles", i.e. pseudofeatures which don't really work the way they pretend to but look cool and attract people who do not bother to think too deep. As long as a feature makes the site more attractive and promises to make the site look more cool, it's welcome, no matter if it actually works or makes sense. Marking good, great, excellent and whatever moves often enough makes users feel happy and likely to stay and play on. There was a nice blog recently about these "gamification" practices: lichess.org/@/SayChessClassical/blog/are-online-chess-players-trapped-pigeons/JPMnLrTC
Lichess, on the other hand, is not a commercial site that would need to attract as many users as possible (ideally, paying users) to generate as much profit as possible; thus they only implement features they deem actually useful and worth the effort. Its interface is simpler, more focused on the practical aspects and less on cheap effects. For the same reason, the analysis focuses on actually useful information rather than making users feel great about themselves. If that's not enough "21st century" for you and you prefer the chess-com approach, maybe lichess is not really the best place for you. Personally, I very much prefer the way things work here.
Bow down to this guy 100 times.
What a legend.
(I hope you didn't copy paste it tho)
What a legend.
(I hope you didn't copy paste it tho)
This thread remains me of how Robert Hübner, a former world class player and the most extensive annotator of all times, viewed good moves. In the introductory remarks to his book "Twenty-five Annotated Games" (probably the most difficult chess book I have ever read) he writes:
"There are no exclamation marks, as they serve no useful purpose. The best move should be mentioned in the analysis in any case; an exclamation mark can only serve to indicate the personal excitement of the commentator. I do not want to impose my feelings on the reader, and I leave it up to him when to feel amazed or thrilled, and when not."
Since chess engines do not have personal excitement or other feelings, it is quite logical that they take the same stance on exclamation marks as Hübner.
"There are no exclamation marks, as they serve no useful purpose. The best move should be mentioned in the analysis in any case; an exclamation mark can only serve to indicate the personal excitement of the commentator. I do not want to impose my feelings on the reader, and I leave it up to him when to feel amazed or thrilled, and when not."
Since chess engines do not have personal excitement or other feelings, it is quite logical that they take the same stance on exclamation marks as Hübner.
@Oma_Inge_aus_Bottrop said in #1:
> Or maybe it's already doing that and I just need to play better...
Yep, that's pretty much it. All its top picks are (by definition) "excellent moves."
> Or maybe it's already doing that and I just need to play better...
Yep, that's pretty much it. All its top picks are (by definition) "excellent moves."
It would actually be pretty easy for a computer to mark good moves, by either of two definitions. One is that this is the only non-bad move, singular moves are well defined and understood by computers. The other is that this is a non-obvious good move, defined as a move that was not a top move after 4 ply, but is the best move after 12+ ply. Either one would be easy to code. Maybe you could call a move which is both singular and non-obvious a "!!" move :)