"Marco" wrote in message news:f87a34c1b64650efa932557505aaf3b0.122502@myga te.mailgate.org...
Here is an analysis I got with Fritz 8:

[Event "ICC 45 15"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2003.12.28"]
[Round "?"]
[White "g8wrb"]
[Black "paupau"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C50"]
[WhiteElo "1179"]
[BlackElo "1123"]
[Annotator "Fritz 8 (30s)"]
[PlyCount "89"]
[EventDate "2003.??.??"]
[TimeControl "2700+15"]

{C50: Hungarian Defence and Giuoco Pianissimo} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.
Bc4 d6 4.
d3 Nf6 {last book move} 5. Be3 h6 {Prevents intrusion on g5} 6. Nc3 a6 {
Covers b5} (6... Na5 7. Qe2 $11) 7. O-O Ng4 8. h3 h5 $2 (8... Nxe3 9.
fxe3 Be7
10. Bxf7+ Kxf7 11. Nxe5+ Kg8 12. Nf7 $14) 9. Nh2 $4 {
letting the wind out of his own sails} (9. hxg4 $142 {
and White gets the upper hand} Bxg4 10. Re1 $18) 9... Nxh2 (9... Nxe3
10. fxe3
Be6 11. Bxe6 fxe6 12. d4 $11) 10. Kxh2 Qf6 {
Black should quickly conclude development.} (10... Be7 11. Nd5 $14) 11.
Ne2 (

Are these 'human-like sentances' such as "Black should quickly
conclude development" produced by Fritz itself, or are they what you
ahve added yourself?

Crafty can analyse a game, but whilst indicating better moves, these
are only every output in terms of a floating point number indicating
the 'goodness' of a move

({12:-0.20} 5. Be3 Na5 6. Na3 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8. Qe2 Nxc4 9. ....
({12:+0.72} 5. Ng5 d5 6. exd5 Na5 7. O-O Nxc4 8. dxc4 Bd6 9. ....

so whilst 'crafty' makes it clear Ng5 would have been a better move,
there is no explanation in 'human' like terms explaining why Ng5 would
have been better.

Something like "Black should quickly conclude development". I can see
a lot of advantages of that form of analysis.


Since I set 'crafy' up to only analyse from Whites point of view
(since I played white), it would not comment on any moved played by
Black, but I home you understand what I'm asking, when I want to know
if Fritz outputs human like sentances, or numbers.

Dr. David Kirkby