Author: Christopher R. Dorr
Date: 06:30:58 12/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 1998 at 02:43:43, Komputer Korner wrote: >On December 21, 1998 at 06:44:58, blass uri wrote: > >> >>On December 21, 1998 at 03:41:00, Komputer Korner wrote: >> >> >>>I can't believe that 3 US masters are arguing against going over their games >>>move by move when the whole chess world DOES this. Sure CM6000 can be used to >>>play against and does have auto annotate, but are 3 US masters arguing that it >>>is not necessary to go over their games move by move? If they think that just >>>because they now have a computer to play against , that is enough ;they are >>>sadly mistaken. Every chess player worth his salt looks at his games in post >>>mortem. This happened before computers came along and it happens with them. So >>>we now have the ridiculous situation that 3 US masters say that it is not >>>necessary to do this. They say that All you have to do is play against a chess >>>engine and use it's auto annotate overnight and that is all you need the >>>computer for to improve. So they say no need to go over your games move by move. >> >>They did not say that playing is alll that you have to do. >>They only said that it is one of the things that can help you >> >>You can also use chessmaster6000 to go over your games move by move. >>It is less convenient to do it but if you give the computer at least some >>minutes for every move then it is not an important disadvantage (If you give it >>only some seconds per move then I agree that it is better to use other programs >>also because of the fact that chessmaster is not very good at blitz) >> >>The fact that you can change personalities is an important advantage of >>chessmaster6000 >>If you want to learn an opening that you prepare against your opponent and you >>know that you understand a positional idea that the computer does not >>understand. >> >>If you use fritz5 then you cannot make the program understand the position so >>you cannot learn much from playing against it. >> >>If you use chessmaster then you can change parameters and make the computer >>understand the position. >> >>This is the reason that I believe that chessmaster6000 is one of the most >>important programs for grandmasters. >> >>I am not close to be a grandmaster and I think that it is interesting to ask >>grandmasters about it. >> >>Maybe they did not think about using the computer in this way and this is the >>reason that they do not use chessmaster6000. >> >>>They say no need to use the computer in player player mode with engine PVs >>>showing on screen. They say that the whole historical practice of players >>>looking at their games after it is finished by taking back moves and moving >>>forward can be thrown out the window. >> >>They did not say that the whole historical practice of players looking at their >>games after it is finished by taking back moves and moving forword can be thrown >>out the window. >> >>Uri > >This changing personality thing is interesting. However you are never sure that >the program will understand any position. However I must admit it has merit if >only that it substitutes for buying a lot of other engines. However the >argument is still 1) move by move analysis of one's own games vs 2) tactical >puzzle solving and looking at GM games > >Chris Dorr and 3 other masters seem to be saying that 2 is more important than >1. How important merely playing is can be seen by many who never improve their >whole lives so clearly only playing is not the most important way to improve. So >it comes down to 1 vs 2. I say 1 is more important and Chris says 2 is more >important. I agree that looking at GM games is important but we don't need a >chess engine to do that. It may be that both ways are equally valid. We need >more opinions from other masters. >-- >Komputer Korner Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that a synthesis of 1 and 2 may be the best course. I write my self-annotations on the computer, sometimes with a board set up next to the machine as well. Within the context of doing that, your method of stepping back and forth appears to me to be analogous to using a thesaurus and spellchecker when writing with a word processor. I still feel that the overal 'course' of the game is vital, but within the context of exploring this 'course' perhaps thes chess 'spell-checker' may be able to assist me. I'm going to try a little experiment this weekend. I've not done this before, and I'm hoping that it will improve my efficiency. I'm going to do a self-annotation of one of my tournament games, and use Fritz5 instead of CDB (which I usually use), and keep the analysis window active. Hopefully, this will alert me to possibilities *while* I am doing the self-analysis. I am a little concerned that it will remove some of the work from me (this workout is obviously what I am going for), but I'd just like to see if the benefits outweigh the downsides. I'll keep you posted. Very interesting thread :) Chris Dorr USCF Life Master
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.