Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Scientific Test, Part IV: Materials and Methods

I analyzed all the 18 games of my last two Winterthur Chess Week participations (2004 and 2005) with Deep Shredder 9 (MacOS X 10.4, 1.2 GHz PowerPC G4 processor, 512 MB RAM), running in a 5 thread analysis mode.

After every move I decided whether to do a Target Feature Count (TFC) or not: If the value of the position, as rated by Deep Shredder, did not substantially change (less than half a pawn unit) after a ply, I discarded the position and analyzed the next ply. If the positional value changed considerably, in most cases more than a pawn unit per ply, I did a TFC for this position.

This analysis is only about attacking a target, not about defending. I do this because it seems easier to classify attacking than defending moves. Of course, defense is just as important as attack.

Target Protocol: For every eligible position I recorded the three top targets together with their TFC values, the move rated as best by Deep Shredder, and the relation between this move and the targets. This relation was counted as positive if the best move was directly aimed at the target (e.g. by a capture) or if it supported such an attack by indirect means (e.g. removal of the guard). It was counted as negative if there was no relation between the best move and the target. For every position, only one positive relation was recorded (e.g. only between the best move and the main target, but not between the best move and the guard protecting the main target). Such a sub-target always had a lower TFC score than the main target. If two or more targets have been attacked by one and the same move (e.g. a Knight Fork), the key square of this attack was recorded as the Ā«main targetĀ». If there was no such key square (e.g. in a discovered attack), the relation to the target with the highest TFC score was recorded as positive and to the targets with lower scores as negative.
  • Every target that scored highest in TFC and was positively related to the best move was recorded as true positive.
  • Every target that scored highest but was negatively related to the best move was recorded as false positive.
  • Every target that did not score highest and was negatively related to the best move was recorded as true negative.
  • Every target that did not score highest but was positively related to the best move was recorded as false negative.
I have analyzed 222 targets from 74 positions in 18 games.

1 Comments:

At 5:42 PM, Blogger generalkaia said...

you've lost me. sounds interesting and i hope it works out.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home