I found these two tools very similar. In Lichess it seems the same. What are the differences? I know the analysis board is for evaluating a specific position and the opening explorer is for learning the best line for a specific opening, but we can do the same by simply clicking the analysis button. Is there a subtlety that I don't see?
Look at the feature URLs in the menu or the tabs from choosing the 2 different ones.
lichess.org/analysis
lichess.org/analysis#explorer
lichess.org/analysis
lichess.org/analysis#explorer
Yes, I know that. What I want to know are the difference between both.
They are exactly the same. The opening explorer is the analysis board with the opening tree already open.
I guess Lichess use two names because people who wants opening won't spontaneously click on "Analysis board", and people who wants analysis won't think to click on "Openings explorer".
I guess Lichess use two names because people who wants opening won't spontaneously click on "Analysis board", and people who wants analysis won't think to click on "Openings explorer".
UI ergonomics
That is what I think. But I find it hard to believe that a platform like lichess has a duplicate tool. There must be something that escapes us.
Opening explorer are not the best moves sometimes. Its just showing you moves that people play on lichess and imported games
The question is clear, the opening explorer shows the frequency of the player's movements. However, the analysis board reports the evaluation of the module. For me, the Liches analysis board does both.
A more interesting tool would be an opening explorer not based on frequency but on evaluation. I know that this evaluation depends on the device, but you could try to record all the advances that are in the analysis, such as the first moves of a game as it is already done. If the analysis is improved, the evaluation database is updated.
The idea would be to build a better database, not based on human games but not on computer games, there was proof that machines already give us a thousand turns.
What I already do so far is looking for good plays of the module that are not very frequent in humans.
A more interesting tool would be an opening explorer not based on frequency but on evaluation. I know that this evaluation depends on the device, but you could try to record all the advances that are in the analysis, such as the first moves of a game as it is already done. If the analysis is improved, the evaluation database is updated.
The idea would be to build a better database, not based on human games but not on computer games, there was proof that machines already give us a thousand turns.
What I already do so far is looking for good plays of the module that are not very frequent in humans.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.