PS.Read your "battle of the methods" thread @RF, I would love to hear the translation sometime
Probably some day... though I'd be ashamed on some of the analysis methods, since that very match has shown several flaws in my thinking processes that would probably be evident from someone hearing the depiction of what I'm doing.
For instance, a method I used to rely on 2 years ago was "Election Analysis", in where, I would analyze a position with engine A, get its move, analyze with engine B, get its move, and so, and so.
I would record the move choices of the engines as a "vote", and would consider the a move "best" if it got three votes, which meant that if three weak engines agreed on some bad move, I'd consider it best, and would move forward to the position after it, to continue the process, until the score dropped so that in the past position an engine would change its vote.
But the method relied on the engines that agreed on the votes, so if they were indeed weak and didn't understand the position, they wouldn't find the moves that refuted their votes. I lost games with it as the method is terribly flawed, later on I found out that I had it backwards.
It's not good that engines agree on a move like that, that's just redundancy and it's better to focus on engines that disagree and have different ideas. If an engine suggested a brilliancy and no other engine voted for it, it would have been pruned by Election Analysis, never to be found again.
From there, future analysis methods took the opposite approach of punishing redundancy, by not checking engines that suggested a move that was already suggested by another engine, and it turned to be much more effective.
Probably in two years I'll be telling you why I got rid of flawed analysis methods like the Carrousel, Pyramid or Ping Pong