Author: Lanny DiBartolomeo
Date: 11:14:54 12/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 1998 at 13:17:03, Raul Kukk wrote: >On December 20, 1998 at 07:32:10, Reynolds Takata wrote: > >> least a year. >>>>>>>>>>>My best friend is a USCF Master...he doesn't use it either. Our City Champion is >>>>>>>>>>>a USCF 2300, and I asked him what he uses his computer for...he uses it to play >>>>>>>>>>>games, and to analyse games from his students. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>So tell me....since we three serious, master-level players don't consider this >>>>>>>>>>>feature very important *at all*, exactly how is it the 'single most important' >>>>>>>>>>>feature? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Yes, I know that you know chess software, but you simply don't speak for all (or >>>>>>>>>>>probably evenb a majority) of computer-using chess players? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Your obsessing on features that many consider trivial (opening book editor, this >>>>>>>>>>>analysis mode) detracts from your toherwise informative and even-handed analysis >>>>>>>>>>>of these programs. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Chris Dorr >>>>>>>>>>>USCF Life Master >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Well then you simply aren't using computers to their fullest extent in helping >>>>>>>>>>you study chess. I don't care what your rating is. Even Kasparov uses player >>>>>>>>>>player mode with on screen PV analysis to look at positions. He isn't looking at >>>>>>>>>>the score evaluation of course but he is certainly looking at the PVs. Buy a top >>>>>>>>>>rated prgram like Rebel 10, M-Chess Pro 8 , Junior 5 or the upcoming Hiarcs 7 >>>>>>>>>>and use them properly to analyze positions and you will begin to understand how >>>>>>>>>>to study chess with chess engines. Perhaps an opening book editor isn't that >>>>>>>>>>important for some even though it has helped me win more than 1 game, but >>>>>>>>>>analysis in player player mode with on screen analysis of PVs IS the most >>>>>>>>>>important feature of a chess program. CM 6000 doesn't have that. It could be >>>>>>>>>>possible to set up a macro with an add on utility as Richard Fowell says to work >>>>>>>>>>around this but since all top chess programs have this feature, then I have the >>>>>>>>>>right to call CM6000 a toy program without that feature. >>>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>>>Komputer Korner >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I do not think it is a big problem because I can use take back and switch sides >>>>>>>>>if I want to see the PV >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yes but that slows you down considerably. Since this should be your number 1 >>>>>>>>activity in studying chess, a lot of time will be wasted. >>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>Komputer Korner >>>>>>> >>>>>>>KK, I don't mean this offensively at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>But what are your qualifications to tell others exactly what their 'number 1 >>>>>>>activity in studying chess' should be? Specifically, I would like to know >>>>>>> >>>>>>>1. Are you recognized as a Master by any organization (Candadian, USCF, FIDE, >>>>>>>etc.) ? What is your current rating? You don't have to be a Master to be a good >>>>>>>teacher, but you do have to have a relatively high rating to impart chess >>>>>>>wisdom, and have it taked seriously. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>2. How many years experience do you have as a trainer or coach (so that we have >>>>>>>a basis for evaluating how seriously to take you training recommendtions) ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>3. How have your students done in tournament play? How much has their >>>>>>>strength/rating increased? In order that we can tell whether or not your >>>>>>>training recommendations work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I'm not trying to be sarcastic, or attacking at all. As a reviewer, you are >>>>>>>extremely well qualified, but before we give credence to your training advice, >>>>>>>I'd like to know where it's coming from. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Fair is fair, so I'll answer these questions about me first, since I disagree >>>>>>>with your training recommendations, and would advise otherwise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>1. I am recognized by the USCF as a Life Master. My current rating has dropped >>>>>>>below USCF 2200, I am currently around USCF 2150 or so. I need 2 more games to >>>>>>>have my FIDE rating published. Currently, it would be about 2125. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>2. I have been professionally teaching chess since 1990. I have worked >>>>>>>extensively with both individual students, and with classes and chess camps. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>3. My students have won state grade level championships (different students) for >>>>>>>fifth, sixth, seventh, eight, and ninth grades. One has finished second in the >>>>>>>National Junior H.S. championship. One has won the state Junior H.S. >>>>>>>Championship. I have worked with students from 5 years old to 80 years old. The >>>>>>>average improvement for my students in their first year of lessons with me has >>>>>>>been about 300 points USCF, compared to an average of their non-lesson-taking >>>>>>>peers of less than 100 points. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I say these things not to attack you, or to make others think differently about >>>>>>>either you or me, but because you are telling the readers that they shoudl be >>>>>>>focused on using the computer to go back and forth through their games as their >>>>>>>primary training focus. I don't believe that they should. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>For the vast majority of USCF 900-1500 students, I believe that a complete >>>>>>>evaluation of all tournment games should be their first priority. CM6K does this >>>>>>>very well, with it's annotation features. Their second priority should be >>>>>>>developing an understanding of how a game 'flows', i.e. how it evolves from an >>>>>>>opening to a middlegame, to an ending. This they can do by playing through games >>>>>>>from a database in a particulr opening. By playing through many of them quickly, >>>>>>>they can start to see where this piece goes, or how this pawn structure mutates >>>>>>>into this kind of attack. Simply having the program evaluate positions while >>>>>>>going back and forth (what you seem to be advocating) does *nothing* to enhance >>>>>>>this goal. These two goals go well together. When they have a decent >>>>>>>understanding of these game flows, then they should move on to playing many >>>>>>>games against a variety of players rated within 200 points of them (both better >>>>>>>and worse) to get a feel for making decisions in the kinds of positions likely >>>>>>>to arise from their openings; and then having these games analysed by the >>>>>>>program too. Again, CM6K's handicapping and customization features are truly >>>>>>>excellent for this. Finally, I believe that graphing their games (ala Lev >>>>>>>Alburt) is vital. Compare CM6K's numeric evaluations to those done by the >>>>>>>student himself (self-annotation is a requisite), and see what kinds of errors >>>>>>>are happening (Is your king getting attacked early in the middlegame frequently, >>>>>>>because you leave it in the center too long? Are you getting beaten because you >>>>>>>allow bad pawn structures? Are you sacrificing material too readily? Are you >>>>>>>missing simple tactics?), and attacking your errors in order of importance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If the average USCF player (current average rating is about 1300-1400), wants to >>>>>>>improve quickly, I would advise them to do what I have suggested above, and work >>>>>>>through the CM6K tutorials. For most players, I believe this will halp them much >>>>>>>more than going back and forth through a single game or a few games, and seeing >>>>>>>how a program evaulates the position. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I'm interested to hear how you think a developing player should use the computer >>>>>>>to help their progress. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Chris Dorr >>>>>>>USCF Life Master >>>>>> >>>>>>Very Excellent advice! I have always believed in this type of training and even >>>>>>train this way still and forever. I do alot of chess puzzles >>>>>>(positional,tactical,endgame)I play solitair chess and I am at master strength >>>>>>and feel my improvement is still growing! I play cm6000 standard time controls >>>>>>after, have it analyse my games and I go over these games and search for a >>>>>>related weakness be it trouble against the bishop pair or underestimating things >>>>>>in situations then I fix these things. I write down my thought process and see >>>>>>if there is a "wrong pattern" in my thinking. And once I attain IM I will then >>>>>>go into serious book-up or if I feel by not booking up is slowing down my chess >>>>>>growth. I told this as a reply to K K in his posts and he called me a lazy >>>>>>chessplayer and said I didnt really want to improve(im more words than not) >>>>>>of course I failed to mention to him I was Master But that shouldnt Matter ! >>>>>>I spend alot of time, too much to be booking up when I feel I should be putting >>>>>>my energy into learning and UNDERSTANDING the hidden details of the game. >>>>> >>>>>You are not using a chess program to it's fullest extent. After using player >>>>>player mode with on screen engine analysis of a strong positional engine to go >>>>>over your games, you will soon realize that you have missed out on an incredible >>>>>resource that computer chess programs can provide. Your way of training has some >>>>>merit but it can't approach the "Truth to the position approach" that player >>>>>player mode with taking back and moving forward with on screen engine analysis >>>>>provides. All GMs will tell you this. You must study your games intensively >>>>>using this approach. In fact all chess teachers use this approach when looking >>>>>at positions with their students. There is no substitute for it and I am >>>>>astonished that you would argue otherwise. >>>>>Komputer Korner >>>> >>>>All GM's? >>>> >>>>Please tell that to my former teacher GM Gregory Kaidanov (You know...FIDE >>>>2600+?). He strongly supported the training regimen that I described above. >>>>Shall I tell him that you know more about chess and chess teaching than he does? >>>>I'm sure he'll be impressed. >>>> >>>>Again, I would truly like to know your qualifications to make such statements. >>>>Another master agreed with me in the above cited post. One of the formost >>>>trainers and players (GM Kaidanov) in the U.S. strongly agreed with my approach. >>>>Please tell me what your qualifications are to disagree? >>>> >>>>This 'truth of the position' method does not have a great deal relevance to the >>>>majority of players. A chess game is not a series of static positions; perhaps >>>>it is to a computer (which is why I disagree with your recommendattion), but to >>>>a human, it is a whole, that flows throughout it's course. You method does >>>>*absolutely nothing* to help one's understanding of that. One must understand >>>>how this opening leads to these typical pawn structures, which lead to these >>>>types of middlegame attacks, ad so on. The static evaluation of a position does >>>>very little to tell a player why this pawn structure is weak, or why that piece >>>>doesn't belong here in these type of lines. The mistakes that most players make >>>>(myself included) won't be fixed by watching some PV go from +1.55 to +1.95. Why >>>>do you think they will? >>>> >>>>Please post your qualifications. Are you a Master? What is your rating? What >>>>have your students done? Do you have any? If a 1600 is telling me (a 2150) that >>>>his training method is better than mine, then I will ask why he is still a 1600. >>>>This is just as disrespectful and inappropriate as me telling GM Kaidanov that >>>>his training methods are inferior to mine. He will say 'I am a 2650....you are a >>>>2150...don't you think I know a bit more about chess than you? I've been a >>>>teacher for 15 years...you haven't been...don't you think I know a bit more >>>>about chess education and training than you?" >>>> >>>>He'd be right. So please, before this discussion goes further, tell us what >>>>qualifies you to make such generalizations and statements. >>>> >>>>Chris Dorr >>>>USCF Life Master >>> >>>Kaidanov then surely hasn't used computers to help with going over one's games. >>>I didn't say your methods were worthless only that you are not using the fill >>>power of a chess engine. By looking at each position in your games very >>>intensively with "my" method it is possible to get a greater understanding of >>>an opening and the middlegame plans. I am not saying to slavishly look at the >>>score evaluation but that to look at the PVs that the engine produces. How does >>>your method give you a greater understanding of your games. If you don't go over >>>them with my method then you are forced to ask a human teacher to obtain this >>>info. However we both agreed that a human teacher is best, but not everybody can >>>afford this or has access to a human master. Then what. What do do you next?. >>>Using "my" method gives you a chance to understand your mistakes. Without a >>>human teacher you don't really have a method to improve your play. Don't forget >>>my method also includes everything your "method" does as far as database and >>>opening work does. I am doing all of the work you are doing and besides am >>>using the back and forward method besides. So in the end I am using all your >>>tools PLUS another tool which I consider the most important one if we disregard >>>human teaching for reasons explained above. By the way my highest rating was >>>2023. I don't have the time anymore to study chess because I am too busy >>>explaining things to emotional people like you. >>>-- >>>Komputer Korner >> >> >>You are calling him emotional? You are the one who is emotional!! You are so >>horrendously hurt by being the slightest bit wrong that you continue to argue >>the merit of a progarm against 5 or more master strength players. It is fine >>for you to make the statement that you think CM should have some more features. >>However it is patently ridiculous for you to make statements such as calling it >>a toy, and making the statement that strong players have no use for it. This is >>especially true, when you have not even put in the effort to become a master. >>This isn't a claim that you can't make relevant statements about computer chess. >> However, when you are continually going off half cocked and insulting MASTERS >>by telling them that they don't have the sense to know if a program is a good >>tool for training their chess abilities or not, you have got to know that indeed >>the problem lies with you. Advice about what strong players can use succesfully >>as a tool for training coming from strong players(i.e masters), carries >>considerable weight when it is coming from strong players. Chessmaster is a >>good TOOL for training. It of course is not the only tool one should use, but >>it does what i need it to do. End of story. >> >> >>R. Takata >>USCF Life Master >>Fide Master >Sorry,You are mush more emotional now...Why some people call himself >MASTERS....so continuousely .Y have allso got some chess expieriens(20years of >play),have been Estonian chempion (25+25 rapid),also got rating something over >2450 at ICCF and by my understanding KK is( mostly )wery right.May be masters in >US train other wayes (y remember somebody saied GM Kaidanov dose...). Here in >Old World (euorope)be sure EWERY GM needs mostly develope his opening repertuare >and if he hasnt got friend GM ore IM neare he analyses hic games in PL/PL >mode....CM6 cant help them thouse directions wery much...sorry!!!! So even if KK >hasnt got the top ELO he knows chess be sure! >With best Christmas greetings to all !!! R.K. Hello, Top players GMs IMs included need to develope a really good opening repituor BUT that is because they have all the other stuff down really good so that now they can take the extra time they need to develope this. under this rating, learn an opening system/s study middle game and endgame I do this in puzzle form and learn where the weaknesses in your games are then strengthen them. There are alot of players that are booked to the Max but they just go down hill after the opening is done,because they spent too much time on it instead of learning the Ideas learning how to understand the game better. You cannot get this from having a good opening repituor, and as far as PVs go in analysis mode sure GMs can do this with great effectiveness Thats because they understand the position far better than us and wouldnt have to question why this or that Again its because they Know the hidden features in chess.So some forms of study are great for some, but a hinderance for others.
This page took 0.01 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.