@toadofsky - on guesses - there likely should be some limit - I have also had to resort to playing many different moves.... maybe after a few (3?) incorrect but ok moves, we should fail the puzzle.
My main point is that I don't think opening puzzles should be graded pass/fail like tactics puzzles are graded. Take for example opening 353:
http://en.lichess.org/training/opening/353
I think if an opening problem requires 5 strong moves, it could be possible to grade each move independently rather than make the entire opening problem pass/fail. (Arguably each move could have a separate rating since some moves are much harder to find than other moves are.)
http://en.lichess.org/training/opening/353
I think if an opening problem requires 5 strong moves, it could be possible to grade each move independently rather than make the entire opening problem pass/fail. (Arguably each move could have a separate rating since some moves are much harder to find than other moves are.)
Candidate Move Trainer in the opening is no different than in the middlegame or in the endgame (very little difference if at all).
In each case, the skill you are optimising is practically the same. So I would classify them all under the same banner.
It might be somewhat beneficial for some however to be able to choose opening/middlegame/endgame specifically for training.
In each case, the skill you are optimising is practically the same. So I would classify them all under the same banner.
It might be somewhat beneficial for some however to be able to choose opening/middlegame/endgame specifically for training.
@run - not disagreeing with your general idea and I see the value in all types of candidate move training - but the biggest difference being that, in this case, these are moves that have been vetted (via TWIC) specifically for opening use. To do the same with middle games, would they get sufficient quantity of moves from a given position? (unlikely, games diverge dramatically after openings) If not, would they need to rely on the engine exclusively? (with aforementioned horizon problems) . I think the TWIC + engine combo makes the opening training qualitatively different and better than other candidate move training.
And as for end-games, I think those can often tend towards regular tactics in their need for precision and calculation.
And as for end-games, I think those can often tend towards regular tactics in their need for precision and calculation.
@goldilocks
Usually in any given position, there are not more than 3-5 best moves. Perhaps in some stray positions, it may be as much as 10-15 moves that are within 30cp of the best move.
1. Perhaps if this seems commonplace, then it would be useful to reduce the criterion to say 25cp or even 20cp. That would sufficiently limit candidate moves in any given position.
2. Another idea is that when a position with lots of candidate moves arises, note all the best candidate moves, but only ask the user for a maximum of 5 moves, and as long as his selection matches one of the candidate moves, it would pass.
Digressing a bit now...
I agree that the TWIC (or any database) + engine combo is the best. I am not sure if tactics are also derived using the same approach, but I think that would also be better. Something like a database of [TWIC + lichess games with player ratings > 2000] would IMO automatically remove some of the absurd tactics trainer positions.
The reason why filtering out training problems ONLY from a master level database is that one of the essential skills chess players train for is *Pattern Recognition*. Master games are a treasure trove of "practically useful" patterns. I don't have specific examples off the top of my head right now, but I hope you know what I mean. Sometimes, some of these blitz/bullet games end up with really crazy positions that are highly impractical in a standard game. Solving a weird mate-in-4 from some random lichess bullet game is probably not going to be of value to me, as it will not help my pattern recognition, because it is quite a strange pattern which will probably never happen in a standard game. So, thats why tactics puzzles should also be taken from master games only (TWIC + high quality lichess games).
Anyway I digressed.
Coming back to Candidate Move Training, yeah random positions from TWIC database + engine @12s multipv should be enough for all phases of the game (opening, middlegame, endgame). Sufficient variety in positions will be attained when more and more analysed positions get added to the database. I think about 100K for each phase of the game would cover most strategic and tactical themes.
Usually in any given position, there are not more than 3-5 best moves. Perhaps in some stray positions, it may be as much as 10-15 moves that are within 30cp of the best move.
1. Perhaps if this seems commonplace, then it would be useful to reduce the criterion to say 25cp or even 20cp. That would sufficiently limit candidate moves in any given position.
2. Another idea is that when a position with lots of candidate moves arises, note all the best candidate moves, but only ask the user for a maximum of 5 moves, and as long as his selection matches one of the candidate moves, it would pass.
Digressing a bit now...
I agree that the TWIC (or any database) + engine combo is the best. I am not sure if tactics are also derived using the same approach, but I think that would also be better. Something like a database of [TWIC + lichess games with player ratings > 2000] would IMO automatically remove some of the absurd tactics trainer positions.
The reason why filtering out training problems ONLY from a master level database is that one of the essential skills chess players train for is *Pattern Recognition*. Master games are a treasure trove of "practically useful" patterns. I don't have specific examples off the top of my head right now, but I hope you know what I mean. Sometimes, some of these blitz/bullet games end up with really crazy positions that are highly impractical in a standard game. Solving a weird mate-in-4 from some random lichess bullet game is probably not going to be of value to me, as it will not help my pattern recognition, because it is quite a strange pattern which will probably never happen in a standard game. So, thats why tactics puzzles should also be taken from master games only (TWIC + high quality lichess games).
Anyway I digressed.
Coming back to Candidate Move Training, yeah random positions from TWIC database + engine @12s multipv should be enough for all phases of the game (opening, middlegame, endgame). Sufficient variety in positions will be attained when more and more analysed positions get added to the database. I think about 100K for each phase of the game would cover most strategic and tactical themes.
tl;didn't read /everything/
We've stored the main-line that each candidate move continues into and we'll make it visible in the future.
I should add that: we didn't limit the move-number that positions had to occur within. We simply said "the position has to occur more than 15 times," so there's no reason that positions from the middle-game or end-game wouldn't appear. And this is irrespective of move number, so they can transpose to be the same position with different move counts and still be considered the same.
I do appreciate how CPT works now that I've seen it. It is in-fact possible for us to translate the puzzles that we've created into a similar system. i.e:
- Each puzzle has an initial fen and a list of candidate moves.
- An initial fen + candidate move => new fen
- Search the db for puzzles starting with the new fen
- ???
- Profit
But how CPT works is much more complicated by the looks of it, so it might be a while. All I'm saying is that it's technically feasible for us to re-use a lot of the expensive SF processing time to create this feature.
We've stored the main-line that each candidate move continues into and we'll make it visible in the future.
I should add that: we didn't limit the move-number that positions had to occur within. We simply said "the position has to occur more than 15 times," so there's no reason that positions from the middle-game or end-game wouldn't appear. And this is irrespective of move number, so they can transpose to be the same position with different move counts and still be considered the same.
I do appreciate how CPT works now that I've seen it. It is in-fact possible for us to translate the puzzles that we've created into a similar system. i.e:
- Each puzzle has an initial fen and a list of candidate moves.
- An initial fen + candidate move => new fen
- Search the db for puzzles starting with the new fen
- ???
- Profit
But how CPT works is much more complicated by the looks of it, so it might be a while. All I'm saying is that it's technically feasible for us to re-use a lot of the expensive SF processing time to create this feature.
Actually, the more I think about it, once the player has finished a position, we should add buttons below each of the candidate moves that transpose into positions that we've already analysed. It's just you'll be switching between playing as black and playing as while.
Someone just made a post about this on r/chess on reddit. Figured I'd crosspost my comments there to this thread. Not sure if you guys read stuff there but there's lots of lichess fans on reddit.
1. Allow users to pick openings or have the option to pick positions from the user's own games, though that's probably more complicated.
2. Give lines and evaluations for the moves that are picked, especially bad ones. It's not at all clear why moves are bad and some are good usually.
3. Put the name of the opening being played somewhere on the screen. As a beginner, it'd be nice to familiarize yourself with the names of openings.
4. Change the scoring from the current all or nothing system to give partial credit. I got 4 "obvious" moves in a pretty dull position and then guessed the 5th one wrong and lost points. Not sure the logic on that.
5. Have a button instead of "Next puzzle" that says "More from this opening" or something similar. This is in conjunction with the opening filter.
6. Put a move limit filter. Beginners probably don't need to see positions 12-20 moves deep in theory. Let people cap the max depth they want to see positions. This would go hand in hand with the opening filters. You could test your knowledge of the first 7 moves of a particular system, for example.
7. Do you have plans to tie this to a personal opening repertoire eventually based on a user's games? That would be amazing.
8. Give the option to play any move and see a computer evaluation Maybe a "play position against the engine" button?
1. Allow users to pick openings or have the option to pick positions from the user's own games, though that's probably more complicated.
2. Give lines and evaluations for the moves that are picked, especially bad ones. It's not at all clear why moves are bad and some are good usually.
3. Put the name of the opening being played somewhere on the screen. As a beginner, it'd be nice to familiarize yourself with the names of openings.
4. Change the scoring from the current all or nothing system to give partial credit. I got 4 "obvious" moves in a pretty dull position and then guessed the 5th one wrong and lost points. Not sure the logic on that.
5. Have a button instead of "Next puzzle" that says "More from this opening" or something similar. This is in conjunction with the opening filter.
6. Put a move limit filter. Beginners probably don't need to see positions 12-20 moves deep in theory. Let people cap the max depth they want to see positions. This would go hand in hand with the opening filters. You could test your knowledge of the first 7 moves of a particular system, for example.
7. Do you have plans to tie this to a personal opening repertoire eventually based on a user's games? That would be amazing.
8. Give the option to play any move and see a computer evaluation Maybe a "play position against the engine" button?
Practically all of those things are on the todo list. Lichess' motto is release early release often. The first release is never the final release.
You are in very wrong direction for a opening training, for candidate moves trainer, sure its ok. Asking 5moves on specific position (fen) at the opening, is equal to ask to give you and probadly bad moves (what's the point??) 1-2 is more likely.
If you want to make a opening trainer you simply create a book from long games where the players are above 2200 and keep only the first 20 moves, each position must exist at least 5times and keep all candidate moves with statistics and in 30minutes you have the opening book ready. There is no need for engine, only bad can make. From this book you select the position that has more then 3 candidates moves and you use this positions for the trainer. You ask for one or two moves and evaluate the moves with the statistics, returning for example Excellent, Very good, Good move, Failed plus all candidates moves + statistics also the best game (the biggest player elo) for each move so that can be studied.
If you want to make a opening trainer you simply create a book from long games where the players are above 2200 and keep only the first 20 moves, each position must exist at least 5times and keep all candidate moves with statistics and in 30minutes you have the opening book ready. There is no need for engine, only bad can make. From this book you select the position that has more then 3 candidates moves and you use this positions for the trainer. You ask for one or two moves and evaluate the moves with the statistics, returning for example Excellent, Very good, Good move, Failed plus all candidates moves + statistics also the best game (the biggest player elo) for each move so that can be studied.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.