pgeorges schrieb: Hi!
>> (One could even consider drawing more than one line if >> analysis of several engines is available.) >> > Difficult to do as scores are not in a particular field, but comments > are parsed to find things looking like +/-X.X Right. But you write them with the evaluation, not? Probably one could normalise the writing of the comment there? > I even recently got problem with Rybka's name : Rybka -32.bit (and -32 > was used as score !). I corrected this in latest release but you will > understand that multiple score extraction is feasible but not that easy, > if you want to avoid errors. I see the problem. Probably if the score comment looks something like this "Score: +1.35 (A) +1.27 (B)"? > For example imagine 2 engines analysing with their own > books. Then engine 1 may be out of book before engine 2, > and you will have only one score for a move when you > expect 2. Jepp. But thats now the case also if the engine is within the book, not? >> * Probably one could shorten the engines names in the >> comments? The legend coud be given in the Annotators >> field. Something like >> >> [Annotator "DeepShredder 11 (A), Toga II 1.3.1 (B)"] >> >> and then later on >> >> A: +0.35, B: +0.27 >> >> > This is less readable for me. Maybe I should insert the engine's field > instead of the name that the UCI engine gives, This would ease up things as well. Then I could place something like DS11 there. > and which is sometimes a > bit too long. Definitively ;) > The problem of aliasing names is that if someone changes > Annotator field, it may leave comments with orphan aliases. You've a strong point here. Agree. >> * Removing the comments/variations should also clear the >> annotator-field. E.g. I ended up with something like >> >> [Annotator "DeepShredder 11, DeepShredder 11, DeepShredder 11, >> DeepShredder 11"] >> >> while trying several settings in the annotation dialog. >> > There may be several problems here, among which how to detect that when > removing comments, you also removed variations ? Agree, here I stumbled across the missing "clean game" that removes both. ;) > Maybe the best solution would be not to add automatically the Annotator > field : I will make an option for this, I think. Sound resonable. >> - eMail Manager [...] >> I could imagine scid to check the pgn header if a pgn >> file is passed on the command line and check for the >> above. If it finds the fields in question it could >> trigger the sync against the local correspondence chess >> database > Personaly, I use other means when playing correspondance chess. If there > are any volunteers to look at this part of Scid (email management) .... Hm, unfortunately I'm not in tcl/tk but maybe you could give me a hint where it lives maybe I'll understand what's going on there. -- Kind regards, Alexander Wagner Universitaetsbibliothek Ilmenau Langewiesener Str. 37 98693 Ilmenau Tel.: 03677/69-4521 , Fax.: 03677/69-4617 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Scid-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scid-users
