lkaufman wrote: My biggest motivation for Komodo was to create a superior analysis tool. I believe that Komodo produces the most accurate analysis of any one core program now (given a minute or so to think).
Actually i think EVERY engine including Komodo , fails miserably in this area. I mean the feedback we get from the engine is just a line and an evaluation.
Is that really all that could be extracted from a position? Are those the ONLY meaningful parameters that could help the human understand the position
NO. There are many many more things that could be returned in an "analysis mode" by an engine in order to "define" a % of certainty of how sure is the engine that this is the best move.
Which are these parameters. Well i guess this is a part of a research but
a) the numbers of fail highs and lows in the subbranch of the move
b) the percent of captures in the subtree
3) the percent of the evaluation that dynamic factors contribute in the position (in case the dynamic elements of the position wear off...)
4) the probability those dynamic factors wear off (as a percent of the subtree analysed , meaning that if in the subtree of MoveA 1% keeps the dynamic factors and 99% loses those and we and up in a position where static evaluation is important, then its possible that the opponent will somehow find a way to fight the opponents initiative....etc
Anyway, there are many ways to get feedback, but every chess engine author, just chooses the usual "eval + line" which is definitely not ok for human analysis
:
I understand that all the important things happen in the foreground. Sometimes it is good to hide a sensitive theme, 
