Author: Martin Schubert
Date: 16:18:56 07/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2001 at 15:33:38, Roy Eassa wrote: >On July 26, 2001 at 11:44:13, Martin Schubert wrote: > >>On July 25, 2001 at 23:00:57, John Dahlem wrote: >> >>>Because I can't afford them both. If you have used both products, is there one >>>that you think is superior? >> >>Always the same question: what do you want? What is important for you? >>But I think CA 6 is fa superior, it's much more flexible then CB. Of course it >>depends on what you want to do with the program. >> >>Martin > > >Can you give a couple examples of what each can do well that the other can't? It's difficult to describe the differences in a few words because of the very different approach of both programs. In CB a function is usually designed very well. But you can use only these functions. Maybe this sounds strange to you. But CA has a lot of "concepts" which you can use for so many things. For example: sorting databases. In Chessbase you can sort after names for example. In Chess Assistant you can set a first sort criteria, a second search criteria, a third... In Chessbase 8 searching for doubles has improved. You can decide if you want to check for identical tourneys and years for example. But in Chess Assistant you can just pick everything to be identical or not. The dataset and the library concepts (although the new classifiers) have so many advantages, which is difficult to describe. You have to try it. But it needs time to understand their full power. When you want to collect games from the internet, which often have very bad game headers which you want to make better you have a lot of possibilities in CA which make it very easy for you. In Chessbase you don't have any of these possibilities. Martin
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.