Latest Updates:
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) IDEA (Read 33653 times)
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #56 - 04/08/15 at 13:59:18
Post Tools
adrianus wrote on 04/08/15 at 06:02:31:
If I use for example H4 in IDEA I see the same analysis like in normal analysis. Is normal?

It has to be..
As I already said, IDeA can be useful for complicated positions only where the normal infinite analysis can miss a good line just because one of the moves in this line is omitted very fast by the engine. As for H4, well...it's one of the best engines nowadays.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
adrianus
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1
Location: Romania
Joined: 04/08/15
Gender: Male
Re: IDEA
Reply #55 - 04/08/15 at 06:02:31
Post Tools
If I use for example H4 in IDEA I see the same analysis like in normal analysis. Is normal?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #54 - 03/13/15 at 08:40:23
Post Tools
@amza iulian
Well, it depends on what you are looking for...
If you want to analyse a normal position for your OTB chess knowledge, infinite analysis will do. Even two cores will be enough.
While, if you want to dig deep into some positions for writing an opening book for example, you will need 4 cores and running an infinite analysis + a good knowledge of the arising positions will complete the task.
Another matter is while playing a correspondence chess game at high level - you will need 4 cores at least to constantly run a mix between infinite analysis and IDeA analysis as well. And then, you would be amazed to perceive how rich is the game of chess in real.  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
amza iulian
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 10
Joined: 02/28/15
Re: IDEA
Reply #53 - 03/13/15 at 05:25:21
Post Tools
Vass wrote on 03/12/15 at 14:47:56:
amza iulian wrote on 03/12/15 at 12:52:48:
Vass wrote on 02/13/15 at 07:49:18:
Tony, just read my posts above and you'll find how to cope with this problem, as well as other problems in the future!

Hi Vass, I am beginner in IDEA. I put one position in Sanbox, send to link IDEA project, after start IDEA with 30 sec and 21 ply. No more settings. After 8 h with 1 core, Stockfish 6, I stop it. The result in tree is similar with infinite analysis. ( only the values is different). I very wrong what I`m doing? For me, is ok, becouse the tree show same imagine about options of oponent.

For operating with IDeA you need 4 cores at least.  Smiley
What is more, IDeA is effective in complex positions only. No need to use it in every single position when you can run infinite analysis. I use it only when there are more than two moves of equal value as candidates.  Wink

Thanks for info. SO, in normal position 8 or 16 core infinite analysis, and for complex positions IDEA minim 4 core. The ideal is to have 2 computers i5 and i7....Smiley..and of course money for electricity. Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #52 - 03/12/15 at 14:47:56
Post Tools
amza iulian wrote on 03/12/15 at 12:52:48:
Vass wrote on 02/13/15 at 07:49:18:
Tony, just read my posts above and you'll find how to cope with this problem, as well as other problems in the future!

Hi Vass, I am beginner in IDEA. I put one position in Sanbox, send to link IDEA project, after start IDEA with 30 sec and 21 ply. No more settings. After 8 h with 1 core, Stockfish 6, I stop it. The result in tree is similar with infinite analysis. ( only the values is different). I very wrong what I`m doing? For me, is ok, becouse the tree show same imagine about options of oponent.

For operating with IDeA you need 4 cores at least.  Smiley
What is more, IDeA is effective in complex positions only. No need to use it in every single position when you can run infinite analysis. I use it only when there are more than two moves of equal value as candidates.  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
amza iulian
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 10
Joined: 02/28/15
Re: IDEA
Reply #51 - 03/12/15 at 12:52:48
Post Tools
Vass wrote on 02/13/15 at 07:49:18:
Tony, just read my posts above and you'll find how to cope with this problem, as well as other problems in the future!

Hi Vass, I am beginner in IDEA. I put one position in Sanbox, send to link IDEA project, after start IDEA with 30 sec and 21 ply. No more settings. After 8 h with 1 core, Stockfish 6, I stop it. The result in tree is similar with infinite analysis. ( only the values is different). I very wrong what I`m doing? For me, is ok, becouse the tree show same imagine about options of oponent.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #50 - 02/13/15 at 07:49:18
Post Tools
Tony, just read my posts above and you'll find how to cope with this problem, as well as other problems in the future!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1765
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: IDEA
Reply #49 - 02/12/15 at 00:38:16
Post Tools
Have any of you guys lost tree data somehow? I have a massive Mar Del Plata project going, and I loaded it up. and it appears as though a huge number of positions from the tree are simply gone, as though somehow I lost days and days worth of analysis!

#$!#&*# IDeA!!  Angry Shocked Sad
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #48 - 02/04/15 at 20:10:00
Post Tools
@ Merlin
I just try to keep it simple.
The net is full of "aaarrrrghssss" and "ohhhhhhhhs" from users that have "broken", "busted" and so on projects. It is enough to read the Aquarium section of the Rybka forum about it. Even TonyRo, who uses IDeA from several months only has his bad experiences with it. Just to say that I never experienced problems in IDeA usage keeping strictly to my methods!  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Merlin
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 3
Joined: 06/12/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #47 - 02/04/15 at 19:52:59
Post Tools
Quote:
Hi, Tony!
I'm, glad you are deep enough in IDeA, so we can discuss pluses and minuses of this outstanding tool for analysis!
1. "...it might be better to use shorter depth/time controls per task to simply run through a lot more tasks per time."  Yes! 10 seconds (max 15) "and" 21-23 moves must be enough for most tasks.
2. Of course, Mar Del Plata is a real test for the good correspondence chess players! "How to" do it?
Well, first, you'll have to import all the moves from the played correspondence and high quality OTB games in the concrete variation you're interested in. [Create an IDeA project with a "root" (say 14...Nh5) - the starting point for your analysis job. Copy all the quality games you could find after this move, make a pgn out of them, paste it in your Sandbox, put the cursor after the initial (12...Nh5) move, right click with your mouse, "copy rest of moves" and paste them in your created IDeA project (after 12...Nh5) using "join moves" option. Then, stepping on every move in the variations you can make it task for analyzing or create an alternate task with the appropriate button on the top of the program window.] Secondly, you can create additional "roots" on the main moves you're interested in (say after 14...Rf7, 16...Bf8, 18.b5, 20.Nxb5 and so on..). Thus, IDeA, when creating tasks, will turn special attention to the positions you gave as "roots" and will create much more tasks for these positions. You can make thousands of "roots" if you want, but usually it's not necessary. The best method is to create additional "roots" after moves that can be countered with many variations. Of course, a root after, say, 19.cxd6 would not be necessary if you see that 19...cxd6 is the only answer. As for Mar Del Plata and the tree shapes, first use "aggressive" shape, then "tactical", next can be "wider", then "default", then "moderate" and the "longest" one in the very end.. And, please, do not stop entering "your" moves pressing the buttons on the top of the IDeA interface for analysis or alternatives! The engines are often blind for the best moves, especially in the Mar Del Plata variation. If you doubt an IDeA evaluation after a specific move, you can start an "infinite analysis" (put the mouse cursor after it and press the appropriate "infinite analysis" button on the top of the IDeA interface) with one of your six IDeA engines right into the project, leave it for some time and you'll see the line and the evaluation of the engine (while the other 5 engines will continue their work on the project). You can stop it by clicking with your mouse on the task (usually a white one) and while seeing the line the engine is counting on, press the underlined "finish task" below the tasks row. Then your engine will stop its infinite analysis and will take its usual job..
3. I used all the Aquarium versions since 2012 - now I'm on 2015 which is more stable than the 2014 version. My advices: Make a backup copy of the Aquarium "Data" folder every day (after stopping the analysis and exiting the program)! Aquarium is a buggy program, so use it simply - do not make connections between IDeA and Aquarium's database games. Copy and paste moves between Sandbox and IDeA interfaces is better than making connections between them and run an infinite analysis from the Sandbox while sending the analysis lines in the IDeA to be expanded. Most of the bugs come from the complexity of this software.. Next, if you have too many projects and too many positions are already analyzed, your IDeA will become slow. And if you experience this issue, then make a backup of the Aquarium's "Data" folder, uninstall your Aquarium, delete the folder it leaves and install it again. Then use the "Import" option to import your projects from your backup Data folder! This will eliminate all the evaluations of the IA column, but will import all the evaluations from the IDeA analysis column, which are necessary for the program to start from where you've been before. And IDeA will be faster in minimaxing and creating tasks than it was before. What is more... There are tools which you can run from time to time - better handled in the 2015 version.. For example, go to the Sandbox, find the appropriate button "Verify" and use it to verify your IDeA  and "infinite analysis" trees as well as the "configuration folder". If  a tree turns red after verifying, then it is broken. The only way to save your work is to backup your Data folder, uninstall Aquarium and then install it again, configure it as it was before and import the broken project with the "Import" button. This will import only the safe lines out of your big broken tree, cutting the bad ones. Of course, the IA column with its evaluations will be empty, but the IDeA evaluation column will be all there - and this is enough to continue from where you've been.. Another tool for maintaining the system is "compress trees" which can be used by right clicking on the status bar (on the very bottom on the program while in Sandbox or in IDeA window) and choosing it from the menu that is opening.
4. Highlighting moves green (or red, or whatever..) is useless. The only real marks for the program are the "roots" - using them is the key! As I already mentioned, your good work with the "roots" will bring you the results you're after.. Don't stop using them, because they are guiding the otherwise blind program what to analyse. Aaah, and one more thing, my usual observation is that you will need more than 50.000 completed tasks analyzed after every move, in order to decide that your analysis is done.. And sometimes, in complex positions like in the Mar Del Plata variation, even 100.000 completed tasks are not enough to decide upon the best move.. Tough task, isn't it?  Wink
As for the "shapes" of the analysis tree, two or three years ago one of the best correspondence chess players in the world said that in the complex positions he usually leaves the software to analyse with 100 % wide tree for 4-5 days, then 75 % wide tree for 3 days, then 50 % wide tree for 2 days and so on... Well, as I suppose he must have had very powerful hardware then... And no, it's not necessary! 33 % wide tree is enough for most of the positions you analyse... 50 % wide tree is too much already and can be used only in very complex positions.
So far...so good! Feel free to ask if more questions arise!
By the way, a helpful link for an appropriate thread in a well-known forum:
rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/board_show.pl?bid=9
Your truly,
Vass


This post is quite interesting in many ways (but hard to read with no spacing between paragraphs) and your method gets the job done. However, you are making things much too difficult for yourself, considering, for instance, the easy to use tree verification in Aquarium 2015. Seeding an IDeA project straight from a database search is another thing which I use regularly and is much easier than the method you prefer.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #46 - 02/04/15 at 09:06:52
Post Tools
TonyRo wrote on 02/03/15 at 21:07:34:
Thanks for responding Vass - appreciate my responses are below and correspond to the numbers above again:

1. I'll continue to use the smaller depth/time then - do you have an engine preference. I suppose it depends on the type of position, but I have mostly been using Stockfish, and some Houdini 4. I'll occasionally use Komodo in IA to look for new ideas or to check the IDeA Main Lines for soundness and alternatives.

2. Hi Vass - I have gotten in the habit of always seeding IDeA with relevant games, usually putting an extra "game" in the database at the end that's filled with my analysis and analysis from books if I have the time. The problem with the KID is that once you prove that one White defense is winning, another equally lame move pops up, and then you have to show the computer that this move also loses, and so forth. And that might be only one critical line - then you have to step back, etc, and do it all over again in some other variation. It feels faster to simply use Infinite Analysis with large hash so for at least a bit, the computer remembers that Black is winning there...I'll have to re-investigate all of the tree shapes - I can't remember the difference between aggressive and tactical. Good reminder about using the infinite analysis tool within IDeA - will that change the evaluation of the whole branch though, or?

3. I will have to check out 2015. Nikos suggested to me that perhaps my problem was that my trees were getting too large - apparently there's a 2 GB limit. You can compress them though, so I'll see if that fixes my crashing problem too.

4. I was under the impression that highlighting red stopped IDeA from considering this move or assigning tasks to positions occuring after it, and that any moves highlighted green would be the only moves considered? I don't highlight red at all anymore though, as I noticed if I highlighted a move red, IDeA would simply generate another alternative, usually worse of course!

100% wide trees seems ludicrous, and completely unnecessary! I have normally been around the limits you suggest - 25-40% is really about as low or high as I go.

Have you ever used the networking features to connect more than one machine to an IDeA project? I was thinking about trying this with my laptop in addition to my desktop for more power!

Cheesy Grin

Thanks Vass! 

Amazing software, isn't it?!  Wink Very addictive..
1. As for the engines I use, the main IDeA engine has to be one and only - the one that will put the final verdict and give a reasonable evaluation. So, let's see - we use smaller depth/time for the analysis - which engine would be the best one? The evaluation of Stockfish is unique and a bit overrated, imho, fast, but usually needs more time to calculate properly than what we give (15 seconds / 23 moves), so it can miss tactics.. Komodo is an amazing engine, but can miss tactics too, because it needs more time than our 15 seconds - it's a kind of positional engine, not a fast calculator.. While Houdini has everything - a good evaluation function and a fast way to "see" what is going on.. Therefore, I use Houdini as a main IDeA engine, while making additional analysis with Stockfish and Komodo, thus feeding the tree with moves to be considered by Houdini. (A hint: Use only five cores for IDeA and run an infinite analysis within IDeA with a different engine with the sixth core!) I know people who use Critter for IDeA engine and I understand them very well. One may ask why - after all, Critter is not amongst the best three. But... It is a very good tactical engine - calculates tactics maybe even better than Houdini (for a small amount of time given). It has excellent evaluation function, too - almost as Houdini's one. And at last, but not least, it has excellent feature that is handled even better than the Houdini's one - the internal hash learning file. If set properly in Aquarium, it stores all these lines that were previously considered and (as in your case in Mar del Plata) there won't be too much 'new moves popping up', needing your attention to be calculated again and again..
2. About popping up, see above! As for using infinite analysis within IDeA, just try it and you'll see the difference! IA column will be changed as soon as you start the process, thus giving the software a hint where to dig in.. And the aggressive shape is much stubborn than the tactical one - it will dig and dig even into a bad line, just to assure you that the evaluation of this line is as it is shown.
3. Well, Aquarium is not an expensive software, compared to others, so I think that 2015-version will be a good experience for you, if you're addicted to it.  Wink As for crashing, Install Aquarium anew as I described in my previous post (don't forget to back up the data folder as well as deleting the remaining Aquarium folder after uninstalling!), configure your new Aquarium as it was before (with engines an so on..), then use the "Import" function to import your old projects from the backed-up "Data" folder! Start your work from where you've been and don't forget to use the "Verify" function from time to time, as well as "Compress trees" function! And never connect IDeA projects to databases' or Sandbox games! Use it simple and you won't regret! Aquarium can handle even bigger trees than 2GB ones - the only problem it has is the handling of the infinite analysis files which are getting bigger and bigger. To get rid of them, just reinstall the Aquarium from time to time! Who cares these IA column evaluations, after all? All you need is the IDeA column evaluations.
4. Good observations about red highlighting! Yes, it is so! While green highlighting doesn't have the power that "roots" have. Then keep it simple - use "roots" properly and you won't regret! And in most cases, 33-35 % wide tree setting fits for all projects, except for some special ones. And I never used the networking features of Aquarium, though I heard they work well. The reason - the processor cores of my two laptops work on different (GHZ) speed than the ones of my desktop PC. They will be slower while considering the tasks and their evaluation may be different from the evaluation made by my PC engines/cores. Your six PC-cores are usually enough, and if you want more powerful hardware, my advice is to look at the two-piece Xeon processors systems. Unfortunately, they are too expensive, imho..  Undecided
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1765
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: IDEA
Reply #45 - 02/03/15 at 21:07:34
Post Tools
Thanks for responding Vass - appreciate my responses are below and correspond to the numbers above again:

1. I'll continue to use the smaller depth/time then - do you have an engine preference. I suppose it depends on the type of position, but I have mostly been using Stockfish, and some Houdini 4. I'll occasionally use Komodo in IA to look for new ideas or to check the IDeA Main Lines for soundness and alternatives.

2. Hi Vass - I have gotten in the habit of always seeding IDeA with relevant games, usually putting an extra "game" in the database at the end that's filled with my analysis and analysis from books if I have the time. The problem with the KID is that once you prove that one White defense is winning, another equally lame move pops up, and then you have to show the computer that this move also loses, and so forth. And that might be only one critical line - then you have to step back, etc, and do it all over again in some other variation. It feels faster to simply use Infinite Analysis with large hash so for at least a bit, the computer remembers that Black is winning there...I'll have to re-investigate all of the tree shapes - I can't remember the difference between aggressive and tactical. Good reminder about using the infinite analysis tool within IDeA - will that change the evaluation of the whole branch though, or?

3. I will have to check out 2015. Nikos suggested to me that perhaps my problem was that my trees were getting too large - apparently there's a 2 GB limit. You can compress them though, so I'll see if that fixes my crashing problem too.

4. I was under the impression that highlighting red stopped IDeA from considering this move or assigning tasks to positions occuring after it, and that any moves highlighted green would be the only moves considered? I don't highlight red at all anymore though, as I noticed if I highlighted a move red, IDeA would simply generate another alternative, usually worse of course!

100% wide trees seems ludicrous, and completely unnecessary! I have normally been around the limits you suggest - 25-40% is really about as low or high as I go.

Have you ever used the networking features to connect more than one machine to an IDeA project? I was thinking about trying this with my laptop in addition to my desktop for more power!

Cheesy Grin

Thanks Vass!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #44 - 02/03/15 at 11:18:24
Post Tools
TonyRo wrote on 02/02/15 at 18:45:11:
Revisiting this old thread to ask Vass or anyone else with IDeA experience some questions (if he/they have the time to answer me). I have been using IDeA exlusively in an ICCF Master Class tournament and have been having good results so far, I'll post my finished games below. But as I use it, I still have some thoughts and questions:

1. Do you have any preference on analyzing deeply or not deeply per task? I have a year or two old i7 6-core processor, so my computer is fairly powerful, but I can't help but think that based on how IDeA works and how the analysis is structured, it might be better to use shorter depth/time controls per task to simply run through a lot more tasks per time. Because IDeA continues to prolong lines and minimax the tree, it seems like shorter depth/task isn't a huge deal - it might be better to simply have a tree with two times as many positions at shorter depths. Maybe I'm wrong here.

2. Have you had any luck using IDeA in the Mar Del Plata? Computers have a hard time with this line in general because of the heavy sacrificial attacking resources Black has that frequently feature quiet moves, combined with the fact that the positions are very closed, but IDeA might be struggling even worse. It just generates so many alternatives, and in each one usually fails to reach the depth and find all of the necessary moves for Black, even given large amounts of time. There are just too many branches. I tried using the "aggressive" tree option, but that might be just making it worse. The use of the thematic moves perhaps helps some, but I'm not sure what format those strings need to be in for Black - sometimes I notice it's not always checking them. Maybe I need to move to longer time/depth and limit the White alternatives to 4-5 just to make sure it's focusing on a smaller subset of the positions. I make progress by linking the projects and inserting analysis of my own and games from databases, but it's really not enough to make good progress.

3. I am currently using 2014 - it crashes on me overnight probably 70% of the time. I wake up and it's not responding. Does this happen to you? Do you know if the upgrade to 2015 is worth it?

4. What is your approach with the tree shapes? I have been using low time/depth and "aggressive" at first to fill up the tree with a ton of a moves for a few days, and only then moving to thinner shapes like Default or Moderate, occasionally Longest to focus on the most important moves, always moving the roots around as needed and highlighting moves green, etc. Just wondering what other people were doing as far as IDeA strategy was concerned.

Thanks!
...

Hi, Tony!
I'm, glad you are deep enough in IDeA, so we can discuss pluses and minuses of this outstanding tool for analysis!
1. "...it might be better to use shorter depth/time controls per task to simply run through a lot more tasks per time."  Yes! 10 seconds (max 15) "and" 21-23 moves must be enough for most tasks.
2. Of course, Mar Del Plata is a real test for the good correspondence chess players! "How to" do it?
Well, first, you'll have to import all the moves from the played correspondence and high quality OTB games in the concrete variation you're interested in. [Create an IDeA project with a "root" (say 14...Nh5) - the starting point for your analysis job. Copy all the quality games you could find after this move, make a pgn out of them, paste it in your Sandbox, put the cursor after the initial (12...Nh5) move, right click with your mouse, "copy rest of moves" and paste them in your created IDeA project (after 12...Nh5) using "join moves" option. Then, stepping on every move in the variations you can make it task for analyzing or create an alternate task with the appropriate button on the top of the program window.] Secondly, you can create additional "roots" on the main moves you're interested in (say after 14...Rf7, 16...Bf8, 18.b5, 20.Nxb5 and so on..). Thus, IDeA, when creating tasks, will turn special attention to the positions you gave as "roots" and will create much more tasks for these positions. You can make thousands of "roots" if you want, but usually it's not necessary. The best method is to create additional "roots" after moves that can be countered with many variations. Of course, a root after, say, 19.cxd6 would not be necessary if you see that 19...cxd6 is the only answer. As for Mar Del Plata and the tree shapes, first use "aggressive" shape, then "tactical", next can be "wider", then "default", then "moderate" and the "longest" one in the very end.. And, please, do not stop entering "your" moves pressing the buttons on the top of the IDeA interface for analysis or alternatives! The engines are often blind for the best moves, especially in the Mar Del Plata variation. If you doubt an IDeA evaluation after a specific move, you can start an "infinite analysis" (put the mouse cursor after it and press the appropriate "infinite analysis" button on the top of the IDeA interface) with one of your six IDeA engines right into the project, leave it for some time and you'll see the line and the evaluation of the engine (while the other 5 engines will continue their work on the project). You can stop it by clicking with your mouse on the task (usually a white one) and while seeing the line the engine is counting on, press the underlined "finish task" below the tasks row. Then your engine will stop its infinite analysis and will take its usual job..
3. I used all the Aquarium versions since 2012 - now I'm on 2015 which is more stable than the 2014 version. My advices: Make a backup copy of the Aquarium "Data" folder every day (after stopping the analysis and exiting the program)! Aquarium is a buggy program, so use it simply - do not make connections between IDeA and Aquarium's database games. Copy and paste moves between Sandbox and IDeA interfaces is better than making connections between them and run an infinite analysis from the Sandbox while sending the analysis lines in the IDeA to be expanded. Most of the bugs come from the complexity of this software.. Next, if you have too many projects and too many positions are already analyzed, your IDeA will become slow. And if you experience this issue, then make a backup of the Aquarium's "Data" folder, uninstall your Aquarium, delete the folder it leaves and install it again. Then use the "Import" option to import your projects from your backup Data folder! This will eliminate all the evaluations of the IA column, but will import all the evaluations from the IDeA analysis column, which are necessary for the program to start from where you've been before. And IDeA will be faster in minimaxing and creating tasks than it was before. What is more... There are tools which you can run from time to time - better handled in the 2015 version.. For example, go to the Sandbox, find the appropriate button "Verify" and use it to verify your IDeA  and "infinite analysis" trees as well as the "configuration folder". If  a tree turns red after verifying, then it is broken. The only way to save your work is to backup your Data folder, uninstall Aquarium and then install it again, configure it as it was before and import the broken project with the "Import" button. This will import only the safe lines out of your big broken tree, cutting the bad ones. Of course, the IA column with its evaluations will be empty, but the IDeA evaluation column will be all there - and this is enough to continue from where you've been.. Another tool for maintaining the system is "compress trees" which can be used by right clicking on the status bar (on the very bottom on the program while in Sandbox or in IDeA window) and choosing it from the menu that is opening.
4. Highlighting moves green (or red, or whatever..) is useless. The only real marks for the program are the "roots" - using them is the key! As I already mentioned, your good work with the "roots" will bring you the results you're after.. Don't stop using them, because they are guiding the otherwise blind program what to analyse. Aaah, and one more thing, my usual observation is that you will need more than 50.000 completed tasks analyzed after every move, in order to decide that your analysis is done.. And sometimes, in complex positions like in the Mar Del Plata variation, even 100.000 completed tasks are not enough to decide upon the best move.. Tough task, isn't it?  Wink
As for the "shapes" of the analysis tree, two or three years ago one of the best correspondence chess players in the world said that in the complex positions he usually leaves the software to analyse with 100 % wide tree for 4-5 days, then 75 % wide tree for 3 days, then 50 % wide tree for 2 days and so on... Well, as I suppose he must have had very powerful hardware then... And no, it's not necessary! 33 % wide tree is enough for most of the positions you analyse... 50 % wide tree is too much already and can be used only in very complex positions.
So far...so good! Feel free to ask if more questions arise!
By the way, a helpful link for an appropriate thread in a well-known forum:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/board_show.pl?bid=9
Your truly,
Vass
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1765
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: IDEA
Reply #43 - 02/02/15 at 18:45:11
Post Tools
Revisiting this old thread to ask Vass or anyone else with IDeA experience some questions (if he/they have the time to answer me). I have been using IDeA exlusively in an ICCF Master Class tournament and have been having good results so far, I'll post my finished games below. But as I use it, I still have some thoughts and questions:

1. Do you have any preference on analyzing deeply or not deeply per task? I have a year or two old i7 6-core processor, so my computer is fairly powerful, but I can't help but think that based on how IDeA works and how the analysis is structured, it might be better to use shorter depth/time controls per task to simply run through a lot more tasks per time. Because IDeA continues to prolong lines and minimax the tree, it seems like shorter depth/task isn't a huge deal - it might be better to simply have a tree with two times as many positions at shorter depths. Maybe I'm wrong here.

2. Have you had any luck using IDeA in the Mar Del Plata? Computers have a hard time with this line in general because of the heavy sacrificial attacking resources Black has that frequently feature quiet moves, combined with the fact that the positions are very closed, but IDeA might be struggling even worse. It just generates so many alternatives, and in each one usually fails to reach the depth and find all of the necessary moves for Black, even given large amounts of time. There are just too many branches. I tried using the "aggressive" tree option, but that might be just making it worse. The use of the thematic moves perhaps helps some, but I'm not sure what format those strings need to be in for Black - sometimes I notice it's not always checking them. Maybe I need to move to longer time/depth and limit the White alternatives to 4-5 just to make sure it's focusing on a smaller subset of the positions. I make progress by linking the projects and inserting analysis of my own and games from databases, but it's really not enough to make good progress.

3. I am currently using 2014 - it crashes on me overnight probably 70% of the time. I wake up and it's not responding. Does this happen to you? Do you know if the upgrade to 2015 is worth it?

4. What is your approach with the tree shapes? I have been using low time/depth and "aggressive" at first to fill up the tree with a ton of a moves for a few days, and only then moving to thinner shapes like Default or Moderate, occasionally Longest to focus on the most important moves, always moving the roots around as needed and highlighting moves green, etc. Just wondering what other people were doing as far as IDeA strategy was concerned.

Thanks!

Oh, my games so far:





  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trandism
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 181
Location: Greece
Joined: 04/12/08
Gender: Male
Re: IDEA
Reply #42 - 11/06/13 at 12:32:34
Post Tools
Well, my question was about the situations when the number of projects exceeds the number of cores and whether the software allocates CPU core time equally or using some kind of scheduling algorithm for allocating time. E.g. 4 projects, 2 cores. Is the allocation something like 50% of each core per project or is it dynamic? My guess is dynamic - at least that's how I would it - but who knows?

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #41 - 11/05/13 at 18:24:07
Post Tools
Hi, trandism!
CPU time is divided between the projects automatically by the software. For example, 4-core computer - 4 projects simultaneously -> one core per project. Two projects - > two cores each....and so on.
As for the glitches, the only cure I know is to backup your DATA folder (by hand - copy & paste method) from time to time - let's say one per day...replacing the old backup. Thus, you won't have a big loss - only the daily work.  Wink
One of the best things in the IDeA analysis is that you can use it successfully even in the opening phase, right after, say, 10th move or so. It is because IDeA is digging deeper and deeper and thus it connects the opening moves with the early middlegame phase. Usually, not typical of other analysis methods.  Wink
You can even start the IDeA right from the start, to see if 1.e4 or 1.d4 is best.  Grin But, I'm not sure how much time is needed for that kind of analysis.  Roll Eyes
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trandism
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 181
Location: Greece
Joined: 04/12/08
Gender: Male
Re: IDEA
Reply #40 - 11/05/13 at 14:08:24
Post Tools
Vass, do you happen to know how the CPU time is divided amongs projects by default?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trandism
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 181
Location: Greece
Joined: 04/12/08
Gender: Male
Re: IDEA
Reply #39 - 11/05/13 at 13:55:07
Post Tools
Well, I'm a noob to correspondence chess myself, but being a software engineer I was able to start using IDEA and other tools fairly quickly. IDEA took me a couple of days to figure out and I'm enthusiastic about the analysis it provides though for the time being only because it seems beneficial to my chess in general just by browsing the tree. As for results regarding correspondence, I'm not in a position to decide yet but I believe Vass who seems to have worked his brains a lot with this stuff.

An I'd like to ask him if ever IDEA seems to have stuck in a project during the generating tasks procedure. I have a specific position that does this and I'm curious. The position is normal - no repetition (graph cycling) stuff - right out of the opening. I wouldn't like to give it here since it concerns an on-going game.

Anyway, glitches aside, the tool is very useful even if someone does not want to play correspondence. The insights it gives into a middlegame position is beyond anything you'd ever get from infinite analysis. I am very excited about certain features of it like the tree shaping you can do and the thematic moves feature.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Göran
Senior Member
****
Offline


ChessPublishing is great!

Posts: 451
Location: Sweden
Joined: 02/13/08
Gender: Male
Re: IDEA
Reply #38 - 10/31/13 at 22:10:42
Post Tools
Thanks Tullius.
  

What kind of proof is that?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tullius
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 71
Joined: 05/03/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #37 - 10/31/13 at 19:15:26
Post Tools
I would wait for Aquarium 2013 which should come in the next weeks and i think they will include Houdini 4.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Göran
Senior Member
****
Offline


ChessPublishing is great!

Posts: 451
Location: Sweden
Joined: 02/13/08
Gender: Male
Re: IDEA
Reply #36 - 10/31/13 at 18:47:13
Post Tools
Does anyone know if it is worth while upgrading Aquarium 2011 to Aquarium 2012?
  

What kind of proof is that?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dink Heckler
God Member
*****
Offline


Love-Forty

Posts: 783
Joined: 02/01/07
Gender: Male
Re: IDEA
Reply #35 - 10/24/13 at 11:17:35
Post Tools
Thanks, Vass; I think I understand it now in general terms, although of course, there is no substitute for playing around with it to get a real feel for its capabilities.
  

'Am I any good at tactics?'
'Computer says No!'
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #34 - 10/24/13 at 07:05:36
Post Tools
It's easy, pal - we sacrifice time.
But even this is not sure. I think we can achieve the same results faster with the IDeA than with another tool.
And here comes your question - what if we use the same time for the infinite analysis?
You can try and compare.. I've tried it so many times and the results are what made me believe.
And it's all because of the pruning and the hash, as well as the right use of the computer cores. The infinite analysis stores a hash file where the engine writes the lines and evaluations, So, let's imagine it checks the thematic move Bc2xh7+ at the start of the calculation, prolongs it a little bit and giving it an evaluation of -1.40 writes the resulting lines in the hash. Then it turns out to another move, say Nf3-g5, and it gives it an evaluation +1.05, then - to another one (say Qd1-d3) and gives it +1.00. Then to Re1-e3 - +0.83 and so on.. How do you think, how much time is needed to find that only Bc2xh7+ is the right move? It will prolong the other lines for so much time, comparing the resulting evaluations to the evaluation of Bc2xh7+, thus reading the hash time and time again..
Now let's see the IDeA - it will generate all those moves, it will prolong them and depending on the settings you use it will find the right Bc2xh7+ line sooner or later. And if it's very complicated to find this winning line, the user can go along the promising lines and enter some 'human' moves by hand (say, the quiet Ra1-f1 at the end of it 12 or 15 moves later), thus giving the engine a push..  Wink
Besides, there are options in this IDeA tool - for example, the 'aggressive' one. It instructs the engine to prolong the lines even if they don't look promising.
As for the quiet positions where there are many moves one can choose from (and all the evaluations are in the range of +0.20 - +0.30), the IDeA gives all the trees and you can choose 'your' move, not the move that the engine gives in the infinite analysis.
As for the right use of cores, it is known that 4 cores, with a task to calculate 4 moves/lines for example, do the job one by one and thus eating about 20 per cents of the time which is needed for the same 4 cores to calculate the same amount of moves/lines. The computer specialists explain all this with parallel threads and so on..
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dink Heckler
God Member
*****
Offline


Love-Forty

Posts: 783
Joined: 02/01/07
Gender: Male
Re: IDEA
Reply #33 - 10/23/13 at 22:19:34
Post Tools
Thanks, Vass; I appreciate you taking the time to expalin this.

I guess the part I don't understand is this: for any given amount of time and computing power and a given evaluation function etc, you can make x computations. So, if you want to do A, you can't do B. If IDEA is going deeper by not pruning the tree and treating each new node as a new start position (if I understand correctly?), what is being sacrificed relative to regular analysis? If the answer instead is that it takes a lot longer, why can we not achieve the same results by normal means, perhaps tweaking the parameters slightly?

I suppose what I am saying is that since I can't fathom what are the real conceptual differences, it just seems to me to be a 'brutier' brute-force algo. In which case, if you ran a regular analysis for the same time, why would it not achieve the same results? Where would it be wasting  time / resources relative to IDEA?

I'm sure this questioning comes across as hopelessly misinformed, but I'm just trying to understand as a casual outsider (in the same way as I would 'understand' string theory, perhaps, but nevertheless...).
  

'Am I any good at tactics?'
'Computer says No!'
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #32 - 10/23/13 at 21:09:16
Post Tools
Dink Heckler wrote on 10/23/13 at 20:04:34:
Guys, I've tried, I really have, but I don't understand what the issue is here. How is this different from normal computer analysis? Could someone please ELI5 (explain like I'm 5)...

Well, anyone? Someone who studied pedagogics?  Grin
Apart from the sense of humour..
How do you think? Shooting from a long distance with a super-rifle like Houdini, Stockfish or Komodo, or just go near the target and stab it with a knife? The last is the philosophy of the IDeA, so definitely it is a different approach.
Loading Houdini, for example, to calculate milions of lines in the so-called "infinite analysis" in order to find the best one is not as productive as one might guess not knowing how chess engines work. We shall never forget that every engine is cutting off millions of lines on every ply in depth while trying to find the best ones. Sometimes the engine cuts off the best one at once, right at the start of calculating, because it's not promising. Almost all correspondence chess players know that if they don't enter a line by hand and insist on it, they probably would never find the winning line (in a tactical, or complicated position) if there is one, of course. These are usually the moves (in the line) that the engine eliminated in its search while storing their evaluation in the hash file. And as we all know, the hash, if small-sized, is to change in the process of the calculating by entering evaluations of the new calculated moves while deleting the old ones. As for the big-sized hash, it can sometimes delay the performance of the engine, because the last re-reads it to compare the evaluations of the stored lines while calculating.
So, these procedures decrease the performance of the engine significantly.
The other bad issue is that running 4, 6 or even 8 cores to calculate different lines that often transpose in order to find the best one is counter-productive. The computer specialists know this issue and recommend to use one core for calculating a different task in order to use all your cores effectively.
Knowing all this leads us to some new methods of working while analysing. And here comes the IDeA tool, which is constructed to work in a different manner. It uses all your cores but giving them different tasks for analysing. It gives us the opportunity to fine-tune our engines in order to extract the best they can. We can generate every possible move, step on it and generate moves further and further.. There are no "horizons" here. In the infinite analysis a line which is given by an engine and consists of 35 moves in depth is usually good up to the 8 or maximum 10 move (the so-called "horizon" effect). If you go along this line (with your engine) it will start to fluctuate with other promising moves as soon as you start moving. How can you be sure that on the 4th move there is not one which is significantly better and can change the evaluation of the whole line?
Now turning the IDeA on and looking at the evaluations of all the possible moves, you know that these evaluations are not 'horizon'-limited. These are the evaluations of the positions that are at the end of the calculated lines (because of the so-called 'backsolving' - returning the values back to the very beginning of the line). Knowing all this you can choose your line and make the move you think is best.
Am I missing to explain something? I don't know.. It sounds clear for me. But if it's not for you, then feel free to ask!  Wink
And one more time, this is a tool for "InterActive Deep Analysis" and as such, it works only if you know how to use it. And it's not for those who never played chess OTB at decent level.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dink Heckler
God Member
*****
Offline


Love-Forty

Posts: 783
Joined: 02/01/07
Gender: Male
Re: IDEA
Reply #31 - 10/23/13 at 20:04:34
Post Tools
Guys, I've tried, I really have, but I don't understand what the issue is here. How is this different from normal computer analysis? Could someone please ELI5 (explain like I'm 5)...
  

'Am I any good at tactics?'
'Computer says No!'
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #30 - 10/20/13 at 14:47:30
Post Tools
Well, let's set things straight!
1. Make sure that every engine you installed works on 1 thread, low priority, 128 hash size minimum and TBs assigned to each engine - names given, for example,  Houdini 3_1, Houdini 3_2 and so on. Low priority is needed so you can use all your 6 cores of your computer without having problems to work whatever you wish while analysing with the Aquarium's IDeA.
2. Make sure you have a root assigned on the desired move correctly. With 6 cores you can assign at least 5 more roots wherever you like on some promising lines. For example, if you want to analyse the starting chess position when you're the first player, the basic root is at the very start. And if you are planning to play 1.e4, then you can place the second root after 1...e5, the third one after 1....c5, the fourth - after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3, the fifth after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 ....and so on..
You can change these roots whenever you like while analysing - the software starts to use them on the next alternatives / promising lines stage. If you have 6 roots, every engine will take one root and will start generating moves from this root further.
3. First make infinite analysis with different engines (great depth is not needed) - no matter which software you like to use, write the results in a pgn-file, paste it in the so-called "Sandbox" in the Aquarium. Make the IDeA-project from there, making sure your mouse cursor is on the right move that will be the first root of the project. Return to the Sandbox, copy all the moves after the root move and paste it into the IDeA project that you've just created. Start the project and press the button "All positions", thus giving all the moves to the IDeA as tasks to analyse. It will save you time, because the IDeA will start on the right paths at once. And of course, it will make alternatives for every move of your lines.
4. Making a project is better to start as 'default', leaving it at least for a night. 30secs AND 21 plies (maximum 40 seconds) does the job usually. Endgames may need 60 secs OR 30 plys.. Tactical positions may need the 'aggressive' option instead of the "default" one (and don't forget to make your Houdini 3 engines "tactical"). I use 35 to 40 per cents "tree width" most of the times.
5. Next stage is to prolong the analysis changing the "default" option to "longest", while limiting white and black alternatives to 10, 8 or 6 depending on the position you analyse. It can be done "on the fly" also, as almost everything in this software.  Wink
6. You can use every option you see in the GUI as you like - my numbers here are as an example. Some users have completely different styles to extract results from this powerful tool. For example, 15 secs AND 15 plys, "wider" tree, then "default", then "longest" for most of the positions.
7. Do not forget that this tool is 'Interactive' - you have to follow lines and stepping on a move you can press on "current position" or "alternative" buttons, as well as input interesting moves and lines manually moving the pieces directly on the chess board and pressing "current position" button. This way you can direct your analysis on the needed path. It's absolutely necessary, otherwise you'll have to wait for till the Kingdom Come. Of course, there is a way to let the software do the job itself - "wider" option, 75 per cents tree shape and so on... But then the time will be not on your side..  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1765
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: IDEA
Reply #29 - 10/20/13 at 04:28:33
Post Tools
Thanks for all of the advice - I'll look deeper into the reasons why for some reason it didn't work that one time. Since then I have run other IDeA analyses successfully.

What settings would you recommend for longer analyses, let's say a few days, for a CC game? My computer has an i7 6-core CPU in it. Just testing out IDeA, I started @ 100s OR 21 ply and it worked okay (I was also parsing through the tree and assigning 'bad moves' to anything that wasn't promising or looked bad - I'm not sure if there's a more efficient way to prune the tree), but given the IDeA methodology that extends the variations indefinitely, it makes a lot of sense to choose less ply for speeds sake. It also basically never hit the 100s - at 21 ply it worked it's way through relatively quickly.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #28 - 10/19/13 at 09:34:51
Post Tools
@ TonyRo
If you are serious about your intention to learn using this tool properly, I can help you.
First advices:
If you are looking for solving a problem or to find a tactic in a position you feel there is something, you'll have to use the "aggressive" option (not the default). Thus, the software looks for every possible move in the position and prolongs the lines even if they are not so promising. It is connected with other settings you'll have to change as well.
Analysing a normal position is easier if you first use the default option (under 'tree shape') for some time and then change this option to "longest" to prolong the promising lines you already have.
Don't try to shoot at distant targets setting the options in the way that the engines calculate more than 30 seconds per move (maximum 60) or so and depth more than 25 plys deep. Such way your engines cut off the alternatives and aim at distant targets. It is useful to shoot at close targets (see my post about the targets above). Some IDeA users set their engines to calculate 15 (or even 10 or 5) seconds per move maximum. It is enough time for the engine to generate a move, step on it and give its evaluation. As you already know, the IDeA will prolong the line and correct this evaluation whenever it steps on the next generated move(s).  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #27 - 10/19/13 at 09:06:03
Post Tools
TonyRo wrote on 10/18/13 at 14:56:00:
I sucessfully ran my first IDeA analysis overnight - nothing major. I tested it on a position I had analyzed a large amount by myself, and it came to mostly the same conclusions.

I did try to run another one after it by entering a position in the Sandbox and sending it over to an IDeA project I had already created, but nothing happened - it generated no tasks to start with, and so nothing happened. Has anyone had this problem before?


Many times.. It's not a problem of the GUI, It's something you didn't set properly. For example - the root (you have to place the cursor on the root move before you sending the position to the IDeA, for example). Or telling the IDeA what to do - 'Send to IDeA queue and ...."setting.  Roll Eyes
Anyway, there are many, many settings you have to set properly. The default option is not good for a decent analysis. It's good only for a start. Once you start with it, you'll have to change some options to give a good shape of the tree you want. So to speak, to tell IDeA what to analyse.. Otherwise, it turns out one just wastes processor's time.  Smiley

Edit: The only way to learn using this tool it to test it in the positions you know very, very well. For example in a correspondence chess game that you've played before and you think you don't have secrets in.
Aah, and one more thing: if you don't achieve some good results with it - it's not because the tool is not good. It's because...it is you who is not good with it.  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1765
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: IDEA
Reply #26 - 10/18/13 at 14:56:00
Post Tools
I sucessfully ran my first IDeA analysis overnight - nothing major. I tested it on a position I had analyzed a large amount by myself, and it came to mostly the same conclusions.

I did try to run another one after it by entering a position in the Sandbox and sending it over to an IDeA project I had already created, but nothing happened - it generated no tasks to start with, and so nothing happened. Has anyone had this problem before?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 945
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: IDEA
Reply #25 - 10/18/13 at 05:39:44
Post Tools
Vass wrote on 10/17/13 at 21:23:53:
Well, with the IDeA tool you can create the so-called "master tree" in which you store every game you analyse with all the variations. Next time you play the same opening line you can enter this tree and start from when it ended. If your new opponent makes a different move than your opponents made in your prevous games it turns out that this move was analysed too, so you won't start from a scratch.
Some say that such 'master trees' of the best correspondence chess players may cost a good deal of money.  Wink

Such master trees have an expiration date. I've been building such trees for more than a decade and realize that anything built more than 5 years ago has very little value anymore. I wouldn't be surprised over 5 years that we can say the same about the trees made today. Today I often remake some old tree with new engines.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3110
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: IDEA
Reply #24 - 10/18/13 at 00:21:06
Post Tools
Vass wrote on 10/17/13 at 21:31:04:
Stigma wrote on 10/17/13 at 21:23:25:
Just scanning this thread, I'm so glad I'm strictly an OTB player. No need to analyze day and night, pay huge electricity bills or slowly but surely help the machines solve the royal game, which, you have to admit, would take a lot of the fun out of it!

And my games are still to a large extent about the struggle at the board, in real-time, between two human beings.


Well, Stigma, I often say (on this forum, too) that these two are very different kinds of chess. OTB chess is about a fight, preparation, psychology and so on (i.e. the sport in its pure form), while the correspondence one is about finding the 'absolute truth', if there is any..  Grin ...i.e. the art with the big 'A'.

Quite right. To each their own, and I hope I didn't insult anyone! To me the game simply holds infinitely more interest when it's fallible human beings playing. It's no coincidence that chess has been cognitive psychology's favorite guinea-pig for more than a century.

The ultimate truth of Western-Arabic chess is still just the ultimate truth of a historically random set of rules that happened to be codified (for the most part) in 15th century Spain. I fear that as humans + computers approach this truth, the value and popularity of a great mindsport is diminished while nothing of comparable value is gained. In the eyes of the general public, this already started happening with Kasparov's match defeat by Deep Blue.

I guess the "sportsmen" can always salvage a few extra decades by switching to Chess960  Wink
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1765
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: IDEA
Reply #23 - 10/17/13 at 21:48:58
Post Tools
That's chess in general for everyone, isn't it!?

Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #22 - 10/17/13 at 21:35:56
Post Tools
TonyRo wrote on 10/17/13 at 20:05:47:
I need to figure out how to use this thing.

*Goes to the Aquarium Website*


TonyRo, friend, don't hurry!
There will be so many times you would throw away this 'thing' off...cursing,...and then take it again.  Wink
Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #21 - 10/17/13 at 21:31:04
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 10/17/13 at 21:23:25:
Just scanning this thread, I'm so glad I'm strictly an OTB player. No need to analyze day and night, pay huge electricity bills or slowly but surely help the machines solve the royal game, which, you have to admit, would take a lot of the fun out of it!

And my games are still to a large extent about the struggle at the board, in real-time, between two human beings.


Well, Stigma, I often say (on this forum, too) that these two are very different kinds of chess. OTB chess is about a fight, preparation, psychology and so on (i.e. the sport in its pure form), while the correspondence one is about finding the 'absolute truth', if there is any..  Grin ...i.e. the art with the big 'A'.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #20 - 10/17/13 at 21:23:53
Post Tools
Well, with the IDeA tool you can create the so-called "master tree" in which you store every game you analyse with all the variations. Next time you play the same opening line you can enter this tree and start from when it ended. If your new opponent makes a different move than your opponents made in your prevous games it turns out that this move was analysed too, so you won't start from a scratch.
Some say that such 'master trees' of the best correspondence chess players may cost a good deal of money.  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3110
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: IDEA
Reply #19 - 10/17/13 at 21:23:25
Post Tools
Just scanning this thread, I'm so glad I'm strictly an OTB player. No need to analyze day and night, pay huge electricity bills or slowly but surely help the machines solve the royal game, which, you have to admit, would take a lot of the fun out of it!

And my games are still to a large extent about the struggle at the board, in real-time, between two human beings.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 945
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: IDEA
Reply #18 - 10/17/13 at 20:37:09
Post Tools
Vass wrote on 10/17/13 at 20:02:27:
Nope, he doesn't. He simply removes the old root and creates a new root (starting from the move that his opponent did). And the IDeA starts to analyse from this new root position, but all the previously analysed lines are stored, so it just continues to dig deeper. Like there is a constant hash which is never deleted (in comparison to the infinite analysis).
And what is more, one can establish more than one root, for example: there are three (or more) lines which are promising. First they go smoothly but after 5 or 6 plys they distract in different variations. So, I put the first root after the move which my opponent made. Next I put three more roots in the three promising lines right after the undisputed (already approved and well-analysed) moves. Thus, one core/engine keeps on analysing and generating moves from the starting (root) position, while the other three ones start to generate/analyse moves from their starting points, somewehere along the three promising lines.

That is also how I work but then with the deep analysis tool I need to cut the work into pieces so fixing the tool on every branch which needs to be analyzed deeper. No need to explain that it is a very timeconsuming activity. Some players will certainly dislike that but I don't mind as I have the feeling that I stay more in control of what is ongoing.
I just checked one of my most analyzed old correspondence games (win against + 2500 player) and figured out that I generated that way around 70 pages of analysis without any verbal explanations so pure variations !!
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1765
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: IDEA
Reply #17 - 10/17/13 at 20:05:47
Post Tools
I need to figure out how to use this thing.

*Goes to the Aquarium Website*
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #16 - 10/17/13 at 20:02:27
Post Tools
brabo wrote on 10/17/13 at 19:11:35:
If this guy doesn't exceed the timelimit then I don't know. How can you do that for each move if you have 20 or more games running?
Besides I really ask myself how high the electricitybill is for correspondence players using such extensive use of engines. I remember one of my friends telling me that the electricity bill went down with 50% once the stopped playing correspondence chess and in West Europe that is quite some money.

Nope, he doesn't. He simply removes the old root and creates a new root (starting from the move that his opponent did). And the IDeA starts to analyse from this new root position, but all the previously analysed lines are stored, so it just continues to dig deeper. Like there is a constant hash which is never deleted (in comparison to the infinite analysis).
And what is more, one can establish more than one root, for example: there are three (or more) lines which are promising. First they go smoothly but after 5 or 6 plys they distract in different variations. So, I put the first root after the move which my opponent made. Next I put three more roots in the three promising lines right after the undisputed (already approved and well-analysed) moves. Thus, one core/engine keeps on analysing and generating moves from the starting (root) position, while the other three ones start to generate/analyse moves from their starting points, somewehere along the three promising lines.
And yes, the electricity bill is one of the biggest problems in my country, here in eastern Europe, too.  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 945
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: IDEA
Reply #15 - 10/17/13 at 19:20:50
Post Tools
Vass wrote on 10/17/13 at 19:00:45:
To simply visualise what IDeA gives as an analysis you can browse the ChessOK Opening Explorer on this page:
http://chessok.com/?page_id=352
which uses the so-called CAP evaluations explained here:
http://chessok.com/files/bobpawlak/Articles/009_CAP.html
So, IDeA makes such trees..almost trying to solve chess.  Grin
The only problem is that there is no computing power available for this.
That's why we have to help this tool to give us only the best lines out of the perfect tree. And this is the hardest task.  Roll Eyes

As mentioned in my blogarticle, I use 100 seconds per move to get an evaluation for each move during e.g. a night running the deep analysis tool. When it is more light analysis for my OTB games then I use 1 minute per move. For gamepreparations of OTB I dare to use 10 seconds per move as there is often very little time available to prepare. So I also try to solve chess with trees and sort of cap values but don't use the idea-tool for that.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 945
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: IDEA
Reply #14 - 10/17/13 at 19:11:35
Post Tools
Vass wrote on 10/17/13 at 18:44:42:
Another method, used by one of the best correspondence chess players in the world (I won't reveal his name here):
He simply gives the root position to the IDeA with aggressive settings to generate almost every possible move. Leaves it for four days to calculate. It results in the widest possible tree several moves further starting from the root position (of course, the number depends on the computer power). This is a method I call a 'brute force'. Then he shapes the tree, so IDeA starts analysing only the promising lines, leaving it for 2-3 days. And at last, he enters moves by hand all along the (resulted) lines depending on his understanding of chess, giving these to IDeA to prolong them..
Not a promising line can be missed like that, believe me!  Roll Eyes

If this guy doesn't exceed the timelimit then I don't know. How can you do that for each move if you have 20 or more games running?
Besides I really ask myself how high the electricitybill is for correspondence players using such extensive use of engines. I remember one of my friends telling me that the electricity bill went down with 50% once he stopped playing correspondence chess and in West Europe that is quite some money.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 945
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: IDEA
Reply #13 - 10/17/13 at 19:05:29
Post Tools
The deep analysis tool gives you also a complete tree of variations ordered via evaluation which in most cases builds a different mainline then what you would get with infinite analysis in the same timeframe. So there is no difference with the idea-tool on that aspect.

There is however a big advantage of the idea-tool compared with the deep analysis tool.
The idea-tool has the logarithms to define how many branches are interesting to be calculated and can endlessly define new interesting branches to be calculated.
The deep analysis tool is fixed so you need in advance to define where and how many branches will be interesting to analyze. You also need to guess in advance how much time will be spent to create such tree.

In the assumption that you let both tools run automatically, I am pretty sure that you will generate more garbage branches with the deep analysis tool than the idea-tool (which doesn't mean there will be no garbage braches in the idea-tool as also with that tool corrections do happen).

Now if you use both tools semi-automatically so regularly checking what is ongoing (e.g. every half hour) then I believe there will be little to no difference in output between both tools in the assumption you make corrections when you notice garbage branches are being created.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #12 - 10/17/13 at 19:00:45
Post Tools
To simply visualise what IDeA gives as an analysis you can browse the ChessOK Opening Explorer on this page:
http://chessok.com/?page_id=352
which uses the so-called CAP evaluations explained here:
http://chessok.com/files/bobpawlak/Articles/009_CAP.html
So, IDeA makes such trees..almost trying to solve chess.  Grin
The only problem is that there is no computing power available for this.
That's why we have to help this tool to give us only the best lines out of the perfect tree. And this is the hardest task.  Roll Eyes
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #11 - 10/17/13 at 18:44:42
Post Tools
Another method, used by one of the best correspondence chess players in the world (I won't reveal his name here):
He simply gives the root position to the IDeA with aggressive settings to generate almost every possible move. Leaves it for four days to calculate. It results in the widest possible tree several moves further starting from the root position (of course, the number depends on the computer power). This is a method I call a 'brute force'. Then he shapes the tree, so IDeA starts analysing only the promising lines, leaving it for 2-3 days. And at last, he enters moves by hand all along the (resulted) lines depending on his understanding of chess, giving these to IDeA to prolong them..
Not a promising line can be missed like that, believe me!  Roll Eyes
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #10 - 10/17/13 at 18:26:27
Post Tools
Well, let me reveal something about the methods I use!
First, I run infinite analyses with as many different engines as I can (one by one), depending on the time I have. I save all lines in a pgn-file and then move slowly along the given lines while writing all the alternative lines that engines give in this same pgn. It results in a tree of infinite analysis lines made by hand (i.e. the same you can do using the deep analysis tool of Fritz 13 or other programs).
And as you can easily guess, all these lines I give to the IDeA (without all the evaluations). So IDeA takes these lines as high priority, evaluates them move by move, stepping on each one, one after another. Then creates alternatives to every move.. (even for the first ones which start the lines) Prolongs the promising lines.. deeper and deeper.. On and on.. Endlessly..
And it often turns out that the line which most of the engines gave in their infinite analyses is wrong after, say, 8 or 10 plys, so IDeA corrects this line turning back and choosing another direction/branch which was cut off by the 'big guns', developing it....and gets near the target.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 945
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: IDEA
Reply #9 - 10/17/13 at 16:37:17
Post Tools
Correspondence analysis tool , manual comparison of engine-evaluations, infinite analysis of specific moves deep in the branches,... are different ways to avoid the automatic cutting of the branches by the engines.
In the end it is about what gives you the best results in a limited amount of time. I fully agree that purely relying on infinite analysis won't be the best choice to hit the target but I have also strong doubts that relying solely on the 'idea' tool without anything extra will be the most efficient way of analysis. That the 'idea'tool can be another nice weapon in the arsenal of analysingtools, this I won't deny but I've now the impression that it is presented as the holy grail.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #8 - 10/17/13 at 16:11:51
Post Tools
Well, the stress in IDeA's analysis lays upon a simple rule which I would describe like this:
Imagine you have to shoot at a target which is three hundred meters away or so (you never know how far it is and you never know where exactly is) with a gun and you don't want to miss it. Trying to shoot with Houdini's, Stockfish-es or Komodo rifles would never guarantee you a good shot. And this is all because these rifles can't see where the target is. (They simply cut off thousands of branches right at the start of the analysis, for example. Not to mention the millions of branches that they cut off in the analysis process).
Well, so take your old pistol (even your Rybka one) and start shooting endlessly to and fro while advancing further, a pace left, then a pace right, then a pace straight ahead...until you reach the goal (the target). Moving slowly further and further you can measure the right distance to all the objects, including the target. And this is what IDeA is all about.
It's useless to say that if you reach the target just a meter away (or 15 plys in depth), you can use your knife to spot it.  Grin

Edit: What IDeA is not allowing to the engine is..not to cut off the branches just like that.  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 945
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: IDEA
Reply #7 - 10/17/13 at 15:41:47
Post Tools
In the idea-manual is mentioned the following which attracted my interest and generated my previous comment, see chapter 11: Trees
" This means that here we have the evaluations of two different chess engines side by side. You can even color the evaluations where the difference between the two engines exceeds a user specified threshold. Such differences might indicate a position that needs further analysis."
Now rereading this statement, i believe to understand better what is meant:
1) comparison is indeed shown per move between engines so as I stated (not only for infinite mode)
2) the difference might indicate that more analysis is needed which I wrongly interpreted as an automatic process while in reality it is still up to the user to decide if something needs to be done.

I believe the strength of good analysis lays for an important part in comparing analysis done between different engines (no matter which method was used) and adapt when differences in evaluations between engines are shown. As it seems little attention is given to comparing analysis between engines in IDEA, this sounds to me a clear weakness (compared to the method which I use today).
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #6 - 10/17/13 at 14:59:57
Post Tools
@ TonyRo
Using 4, 6 or 8 cores independently (calculating 4, 6 or 8 moves / branches) is much more efficient than using all the cores calculating a single move in a position.

@ brabo
No, brabo! Comparison between two or more engines' evaluations is for the infinite analysis. IDeA works on hard rock values. If you have 4, 6 or 8 cores on your computer you'll have to set 4, 6 or 8 SP threads of a single engine (for example, you install your Houdini 3 in the Aquarium GUI on one thread/core, then repeat this several times, naming them _1, _2, _3, _4 and so on, for example. And you can continue as soon as  the number of the installed Houdini engines becomes equal to the number of the cores/threads in your computer). Starting an IDeA analysis means that you run simultaneously your chosen number of Houdini's, each one of them using one core/thread.  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10475
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: IDEA
Reply #5 - 10/17/13 at 13:58:23
Post Tools
Moved by MNb.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 945
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: IDEA
Reply #4 - 10/17/13 at 13:36:41
Post Tools
Reading the manual, I realize that I am already doing (and more) what IDEA does but then manually. I see 1 major difference and that is in the comparison between the evaluations of different engines. IDEA seems to check for a certain move the difference in evaluation between different engines against a threshold value if more analysis is needed. I don't do that as I realize that single evaluations of an engine often tell you nothing about the quality of the analysis.  I prefer to compare the difference of evaluations of 2 branches with 2 engines. I try to explain:
Example 1:
A) Method of IDEA:
move x with engine A: +/=
move x with engine B: +/-
Threshold past so more analysis on move x is needed.
B) My method:
move x with engine A:+/=
move y with engine A:+/-
move x with engine B: +/-
move y with engine B: +-
No extra analysis needed as both engines give same type of difference between the moves so most likely the evaluationdifference is linked to the way how engines are evaluating positions.
Example 2:
A) Method of IDEA:
move x with engine A: +/=
move x with engine B: +/=
Threshold not past so no more analysis is needed
B) My method:
move x with engine A:+/=
move y with engine A:+/=
move x with engine B: +/=
move y with engine B: =
It is unlikely that the difference in evaluation of move y has to do with differences in how the engines are evaluating.
- Move x by engine A is too low evaluated
- Move y by engine A is too high evaluated
- Move x by engine B is too high evaluated
- Move y by engine B is too low evaluated
We need more analysis to get a better evaluation.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1765
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: IDEA
Reply #3 - 10/17/13 at 13:25:03
Post Tools
People also seem to be excited about the fact that IDeA allows you to use multiple single-core versions of engines 'n' times for added efficiency.

For example, my home computer has a hex-core i7, and can run MP versions of, let's say, Houdini, and I'd get performance (I'm guessing here) something like 4-5 times better than if I just ran a SP version. You don't get the full 6x performance (presumably) because there are some inefficiencies in the master-slave algorithms used in spreading out the analysis of one position to multiple processors and compiling it back together. Instead, in IDeA you can use 6 copies of Houdini SP, though I don't know all the details of why this is somehow better, nor have I tested if this is actually any better.

As an enthusiast of CC and analysis in general, I've always wanted to become very proficient in IDeA, though I've never totally understood it or got into it. I have a hard time letting anything sit for 4 days without just trying things and moving around the pieces.

Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: IDEA
Reply #2 - 10/17/13 at 10:27:59
Post Tools
Nothing is near the pure calculating force of IDeA (the exact name - Interactive Deep Analysis). Believe me!

The latest manual for Aquarium is:
http://chessok.com/download/Aquarium/5/doc/aquarium/Aquarium5.pdf
Check out the appropriate section!

Some good articles you can find on the ChessOK site. For example this one:
http://chessok.com/?p=26620

Anyway, I'll try to explain how IDeA works.
It generates a move, the engine evaluates it in a certain depth (you can put whatever depth you want) and stores the number and the move (say, +0.35) so you can see them anytime you want. Then generates another one...and so on. Then steps on the first move and goes further.. It creates a spider web, but that's not all! The difference between this tool and all the others is that it is "backsolving" (it shows the new evaluation of this line on the start of the line), compares it with the stored evaluations of the other previously generated moves and starts with the next promising alternative). And if, after 20 or even 50 plys in the tree it finds this line is not promising (a tablebase hit with a draw conclusion in our pawn endgame case here for example, or the evaluation just goes down after move 'n' in the line) it turns out to the next generated move as a promising one and goes further. It compares all the evaluations of all the generated moves over and over again. And picks up the most promising one, evaluates it and if promising goes further on this line. As soon as it finds this line is not promising, it does the process again with the next generated move. It works in two stages - creating alternatives and prolonging the promising lines. After each one of them it 'minimax'-es the tree (i.e. does 'backsolving), compares all the evaluations and continues endlessly.
Don't let all the manuals and articles you'd find on the subject mislead you it is easy to analyze with this tool! It's not! It needs all the abilities one has to comprehend how exactly this tool works. It took me two years to train up myself on this subject. I've seen more than 50.000 moves/positions generated from the start position and calculated at very great depth and still nothing near the truth (for example, in a test position where I know where it is). So, this tool can be unproductive and very dangerous for the one who uses it unprepared. It needs a deep comprehension and constant hard-working to achieve the truth.
Anyway, it went to off-topic here, so if you want some help in this matter you can create a new discussion on the appropriate computer section. And I'll be there..  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 945
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: IDEA
Reply #1 - 10/17/13 at 09:20:04
Post Tools
Vass wrote on 10/17/13 at 06:59:11:
Well, guys! I think you don't have to suffer in a pawn endgame, no matter how complex it is.
There are some modern ways for analysis that can solve things easily. For example, there is a tool called "IDea" in the ChessOK Aquarium GUI. It is a fantastic tool for analysis, that can solve problems by pure force calculating. Ir generates a move, steps on it and goes deeper, creating a web of moves like a spider. 150.000 - 200.000 positions/moves can be created for 4 to 10 days depending on the processors' power of your computer, every one of them calculated at 30 plys depth or more depending on the settings you use. It creates a tree which can be very 'heavy' in GBs, but nothing exceptional. Every top correspondence chess player uses this tool. The so-called "infinite analysis", even at 45 plys depth, can't beat it. When using this IDea tool for analysis one can easily see how incompetent can be the usual "infinite" one that everyone uses.
Anyway, the only problem is that this IDea tool is very hard to master in order to become skilled in analysing with it. I for one spent two years of my leisure time to  gain command of it. Not to mention the processors' time which went for it..
As for the opponent guy - he probably used this tool to solve this pawn endgame. Not a hard task I suppose - only a matter of time.  Wink
When a correspondence chess player uses this tool properly for analysing his games he practically can't lose. All he needs is entering a decent opening line which evaluation is close to equal. The only problem is the time. Right now, I play more than 45 correspondence chess games and in fact I can use this tool for no more than 10 of these.  Embarrassed
And I'm really sorry I can't help you in this endgame. I'll start playing 10 more games in the 1st of November... Anyway, not helping you may be for good. After all, what's the beauty in analysing a pawn endgame by pure force and mechanical skills!?  Roll Eyes

I don't have "IDea" in the ChessOK Aquarium GUI but I do believe my method of analyzing also produces good results. It is a far more complex method than purely relying on infinite analysis, described in http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.be/2012/05/analyseren-met-de-computer.html. (maybe I will translate it once to English as it is rather technical and likely difficult to read via googletranslate)
B.t.w. I've the impression that there is little difference between this idea-tool and the correspondence analysis mode available in engines running under the standard chessbase GUI.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
IDEA
10/17/13 at 06:59:11
Post Tools
Well, guys! I think you don't have to suffer in a pawn endgame, no matter how complex it is.
There are some modern ways for analysis that can solve things easily. For example, there is a tool called "IDea" in the ChessOK Aquarium GUI. It is a fantastic tool for analysis, that can solve problems by pure force calculating. Ir generates a move, steps on it and goes deeper, creating a web of moves like a spider. 150.000 - 200.000 positions/moves can be created for 4 to 10 days depending on the processors' power of your computer, every one of them calculated at 30 plys depth or more depending on the settings you use. It creates a tree which can be very 'heavy' in GBs, but nothing exceptional. Every top correspondence chess player uses this tool. The so-called "infinite analysis", even at 45 plys depth, can't beat it. When using this IDea tool for analysis one can easily see how incompetent can be the usual "infinite" one that everyone uses.
Anyway, the only problem is that this IDea tool is very hard to master in order to become skilled in analysing with it. I for one spent two years of my leisure time to  gain command of it. Not to mention the processors' time which went for it..
As for the opponent guy - he probably used this tool to solve this pawn endgame. Not a hard task I suppose - only a matter of time.  Wink
When a correspondence chess player uses this tool properly for analysing his games he practically can't lose. All he needs is entering a decent opening line which evaluation is close to equal. The only problem is the time. Right now, I play more than 45 correspondence chess games and in fact I can use this tool for no more than 10 of these.  Embarrassed
And I'm really sorry I can't help you in this endgame. I'll start playing 10 more games in the 1st of November... Anyway, not helping you may be for good. After all, what's the beauty in analysing a pawn endgame by pure force and mechanical skills!?  Roll Eyes
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo