Scid Code

Updating the opening list...

To assign ECO codes Scid search the deepest position of a game that reach an ECO line.
This means that your change will reclassify games "1. b3 2. e5 3. e4" from A01 to C20.
I do not know which is the right ECO code for such games: can you post some documentation about your proposed change?
For example do you know about a game "1. b3 2. e5 3. e4" published by "Chess Informant?"
Thanks.

Hi Fulvio,

I've stumbled over this message. I'm working on a new ECO table since more than a year, so I can say that I have knowledge about the ECO system. In fact there is no exact scheme how to assign an ECO code, so I think the best way is to use the most common ECO code assignments. Actually it is common to assign "1.e4 e5 2.b3" to C20. Assigning "1.b3 e5 2,e4" also to C20 is a side effect, some people are preferring now A01 for this move transposition, but I think that move transpositions should give the same code when resulting in common positions (ChessBase is in fact not always doing this, but IMO this is a result of errornous coding). And in fact "Chess Informant" is not the leading source for ECO code assignment anymore, nowayday ChessBase is the leader, and ChessBase is also assigning "1.e4 e5 2.b3" and "1.b3 e5 2.e4" to C20.

Hi Gregor,
thanks for the information.
I agree that is important to achieve some consistency between chess software.
I searched the position after 1. b3 e5 2. e4 in Mega Database 2009 (old, but the latest i own) and there are 70+ games as C20, 39 games as A01, 6 games C00, 6 games C47, 2 games B20. So it seems that ChessBase has not done a good job here (even some games 1. e4 e5 2. b3 are classified as A01).

However, IMO, the main point is: for what are used ECO codes nowadays?
Certainly not to for positional search. My chess club have a subscription to "Chess Informant" and the only use i have seen of ECO codes is to look for games in that volumes.
So in my opinion is very important how they assign ECO codes.
I wrote them an e-mail and they kindly replied:
"It is determined according to latest recognizable position. Mistakes are possible though or we could better say that there is no single true in all the cases.
I forwarded your email to our specialists for ECO coding so you can expect more detailed answer."

In the meanwhile, if some user can point out some other use for ECO codes that will be useful.

I agree that is important to achieve some consistency between chess software.

Yes, Scidb will also assign to C20.

I searched the position after 1. b3 e5 2. e4 in Mega Database 2009 (old, but the latest i own) and there are 70+ games as C20, 39 games as A01, 6 games C00, 6 games C47, 2 games B20. So it seems that ChessBase has not done a good job here (even some games 1. e4 e5 2. b3 are classified as A01).

Take into account that the user can overwrite the ECO code, the computed value in ChessBase is C20. In Scid (and Scidb) also the user can overrule, so I think it's not a problem to change the code.

However, IMO, the main point is: for what are used ECO codes nowadays?
Certainly not to for positional search. My chess club have a subscription to "Chess Informant" and the only use i have seen of ECO codes is to look for games in that volumes.

I agree, the ECO code is out of date, but currently there is no well known alternative for the classification of chess openings, and for some GM's and other people the ECO code is still important. But I'm sure that some day an alternative will exist.

Hello,

Thank you for having this conversation.

My two cents:

As soon as you play 2. e4, the game should be classified as an open games. If you look at the way ECO organized its system, it's obvious that they want to separate miscellaneous openings (A) from open games (B-C) and closed games (D-E).

There are classification problems that remain (e.g. King's Indian Attack with 1.Nf3 that transposes into a Sicilian, then a French). However, most of these problems can be "contained" with a judicious "dictionary" (the ECO file is a "dictionary" as it relates a code name to a line). The difficulty is to come up with a dictionary that would become a standard.

There is an alternative to the ECO code. It is called the NIC code. I would advise against switching to this system, since Shane Hudson introduced extensions to the ECO code. I think it would be wise to follow its development. There seems to be more developments over there than at Informant.

That said, I think that Gregor's project is more than welcome. I can't find anything that would be as complete. All this classification looks like one big mess. As long as it follows sound design principle (e.g. classify as greedily as possible), I think it deserves a push.

Thanks for your efforts on this,

Benoit