Answers.Body: <p>The "blunder check" option is for errors only. The level of these errors can be controlled by the "threshold" value that you can define. This threshold also applies to full analysis.</p>
  
  <p>The threshold value is defined in terms of Pawn weights. A high value (say 200) will result in annotation of moves that are bad enough for +-2 pawn or greater change in evaluation, probably indicating immediate or imminent loss of material. A low value (say 30) will show also small improvements indicating where errors resulted in a positional loss equivalent to about a third of a pawn or more.</p>
  
  <p>Full analysis is more detailed and can create references to the DB games and also add visual cues to the commentary it generates.</p>
  
  <p>Both blunder check and full analysis show where the game was lost or won according to the threshold setting. </p>
  
  <p>The full analysis helps in a more detailed study of how the game developed, additionally showing interesting possibilities both good and bad outside the threshold values. So, if one side plays the best move where there was a very tempting bad move (big improvement on small number of ply analysis but turning badly negative on higher number of ply analysis) it will often show the tempting bad move with appropriate commentary.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-01-27T22:10:39.963Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-01-11T15:17:44.240Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2015-01-11T15:17:44.240Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: NoviceProgrammer
Answers.Body: <p>The following can be found on <a href="http://uscfsales.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/comparing-analysis-modes-in-fritzrybka-chess-software/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">USCFSales Steve's ChessBase Tips</a>:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>“Full analysis” mode is likely the better choice for less experienced
  chess players, due to the relative brevity of the alternative
  variations it provides, the short verbal commentary, and the fact that
  variations are evaluated symbolically rather than with numerical
  values.</p>
  <p>Blundercheck gives much more &quot;hard&quot; information than does &quot;full
  analysis&quot;.</p>
  <p>The core purpose in both forms of analysis remains the same: to show
  where each of the players went wrong and what they should have played
  instead. “Full analysis” mode provides the information in a much
  simpler form.</p>
  <p>“Blundercheck” mode will only show improvements, not “what if…?” moves
  which are actually worse.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>You can find much more information on the website provided
  above.  The author, Steve Lopez, has been the authority on ChessBase/Fritz software for nearly two decades.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-11-30T15:43:37.400Z
Answers.Text: So, there is no difference in the evaluation and the aspects evaluated. If at all there is a difference, it is only in the presentation. Is my interpretation correct?
Answers.UserDisplayName: rpattabi
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-11-29T16:31:50.310Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-01-18T20:23:48.230Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-06-17T09:59:59.497Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: xaisoft
Body: <p>In Fritz, I am interested to know the differences between the Full Analysis and Blunder Check. </p>
  
  <p>The differences at the first look seem superficial. For example, I wouldn't mind if there is no natural language used in the analysis which comes with full analysis. Blunder check seems to give good number of variations. So it seems better.</p>
  
  <p>Is natural language the only aspect missing in Blunder Check analysis compared to full analysis? I am trying to figure out what 'full' means here.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-11-19T13:16:01.647Z
Comments.Text: I'm not sure about Fritz specifically, but a blunder is typically a situation where you're almost immediately losing material, tempo, or even the game.  As such, the engine wouldn't need to go very deep to verify the position; it could simply check everything to a depth of 3 or 4 moves, and leave it at that.  A full analysis needs to go a lot deeper (and thus take a lot longer), for it to be confident of the results.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Daniel B
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-11-20T01:21:59.387Z
Comments.Text: an important difference is that the blunder alert will not be triggered when you miss positive moves (e.g mate in one), it will only warn you from moves that severely affect you negatively.
Comments.UserDisplayName: ajax333221
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-11-21T14:48:55.457Z
Comments.Text: @ajax333221 your comment is probably a pretty good answer if you embellish it a bit...  I honestly don't remember the difference, it's been a long time since I've used either function...
Comments.UserDisplayName: Andrew
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-11-23T17:59:16.397Z
Comments.Text: @DanielB ajax333221 Thanks for the insights. I find full analysis frustratingly slow compared to blunder check. Since I am an amateur, I thought blunder check would be good enough. I am not really sure if blunder check doesn't help you find good moves as ajax333221 says.
Comments.UserDisplayName: rpattabi
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-11-24T07:37:00.463Z
Comments.Text: @ragu.pattabi I definitely think full analysis is what you need.  I'm not familiar with Fritz, but it seems that you can configure how long it should take for the analysis (e.g. consider the advice on this [ehow article](http://www.ehow.com/how_4546285_auto-analyze-chess-game-fritz.html)).  The game's manual will probably have more info, too.  The longer you give it, the more accurate it becomes.  If you just want a quick analysis, and don't worry too much about accuracy, a handful of seconds per move should be enough.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Daniel B
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-11-27T04:45:11.730Z
Comments.Text: I must admit that I am not completely sure though, It was a long time ago and my memory could be playing tricks or they could have changed that in future versions, my comment is not reliable I apologize
Comments.UserDisplayName: ajax333221
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-11-30T15:47:25.520Z
Comments.Text: @DanielB Sometimes full analysis is fully silent about some moves which blunder check (has option i guess) provides variation for each move. Also when full analysis gives a move as a better one without any explanation while blunder check 'shows' why it is better by follow through. So I don't understand why full analysis is seen as better.
Comments.UserDisplayName: rpattabi
Tags: <analysis><engines><software><blunder><fritz>
Title: Fritz: Full analysis Vs Blunder check
ThreadText: # Fritz: Full analysis Vs Blunder check
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2012-11-18)
  
  In Fritz, I am interested to know the differences between the Full Analysis and Blunder Check.
  
  The differences at the first look seem superficial. For example, I wouldn't mind if there is no natural language used in the analysis which comes with full analysis. Blunder check seems to give good number of variations. So it seems better.
  
  Is natural language the only aspect missing in Blunder Check analysis compared to full analysis? I am trying to figure out what 'full' means here.
  
  **Tags:** analysis, engines, software, blunder, fritz
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I'm not sure about Fritz specifically, but a blunder is typically a situation where you're almost immediately losing material, tempo, or even the game.  As such, the engine wouldn't need to go very deep to verify the position; it could simply check everything to a depth of 3 or 4 moves, and leave it at that.  A full analysis needs to go a lot deeper (and thus take a lot longer), for it to be confident of the results.  
  > **username_2**: an important difference is that the blunder alert will not be triggered when you miss positive moves (e.g mate in one), it will only warn you from moves that severely affect you negatively.  
  > **username_3**: @username_2 your comment is probably a pretty good answer if you embellish it a bit...  I honestly don't remember the difference, it's been a long time since I've used either function...  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 username_2 Thanks for the insights. I find full analysis frustratingly slow compared to blunder check. Since I am an amateur, I thought blunder check would be good enough. I am not really sure if blunder check doesn't help you find good moves as username_2 says.  
  > **username_1**: @ragu.pattabi I definitely think full analysis is what you need.  I'm not familiar with Fritz, but it seems that you can configure how long it should take for the analysis (e.g. consider the advice on this [ehow article](http://www.ehow.com/how_4546285_auto-analyze-chess-game-fritz.html)).  The game's manual will probably have more info, too.  The longer you give it, the more accurate it becomes.  If you just want a quick analysis, and don't worry too much about accuracy, a handful of seconds per move should be enough.  
  > **username_2**: I must admit that I am not completely sure though, It was a long time ago and my memory could be playing tricks or they could have changed that in future versions, my comment is not reliable I apologize  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 Sometimes full analysis is fully silent about some moves which blunder check (has option i guess) provides variation for each move. Also when full analysis gives a move as a better one without any explanation while blunder check 'shows' why it is better by follow through. So I don't understand why full analysis is seen as better.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2012-11-29. Score: 7 | Accepted answer
  
  The following can be found on [USCFSales Steve's ChessBase Tips](http://uscfsales.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/comparing-analysis-modes-in-fritzrybka-chess-software/):
  
  > “Full analysis” mode is likely the better choice for less experienced
  > chess players, due to the relative brevity of the alternative
  > variations it provides, the short verbal commentary, and the fact that
  > variations are evaluated symbolically rather than with numerical
  > values.
  >
  > Blundercheck gives much more "hard" information than does "full
  > analysis".
  >
  > The core purpose in both forms of analysis remains the same: to show
  > where each of the players went wrong and what they should have played
  > instead. “Full analysis” mode provides the information in a much
  > simpler form.
  >
  > “Blundercheck” mode will only show improvements, not “what if…?” moves
  > which are actually worse.
  
  You can find much more information on the website provided
  above. The author, Steve Lopez, has been the authority on ChessBase/Fritz software for nearly two decades.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: So, there is no difference in the evaluation and the aspects evaluated. If at all there is a difference, it is only in the presentation. Is my interpretation correct?  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2013-01-27. Score: 3
  
  The "blunder check" option is for errors only. The level of these errors can be controlled by the "threshold" value that you can define. This threshold also applies to full analysis.
  
  The threshold value is defined in terms of Pawn weights. A high value (say 200) will result in annotation of moves that are bad enough for +-2 pawn or greater change in evaluation, probably indicating immediate or imminent loss of material. A low value (say 30) will show also small improvements indicating where errors resulted in a positional loss equivalent to about a third of a pawn or more.
  
  Full analysis is more detailed and can create references to the DB games and also add visual cues to the commentary it generates.
  
  Both blunder check and full analysis show where the game was lost or won according to the threshold setting.
  
  The full analysis helps in a more detailed study of how the game developed, additionally showing interesting possibilities both good and bad outside the threshold values. So, if one side plays the best move where there was a very tempting bad move (big improvement on small number of ply analysis but turning badly negative on higher number of ply analysis) it will often show the tempting bad move with appropriate commentary.
  
  
  ---
  
  