Author: Stephen Ham
Date: 15:15:58 12/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 2002 at 17:44:04, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 06, 2002 at 16:20:39, Stephen Ham wrote: > >>On December 06, 2002 at 13:07:32, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On December 06, 2002 at 12:56:18, Stephen Ham wrote: >>> >>>>This was interesting, although the question is vague. For example, I don't use >>>>any chess engines to analyse during my games; I find my own moves. However, I >>>>use Nimzo 7.32 to blunder check to ensure I'm not hanging material >>>>(unknowingly!) before posting the move. >>> >>>So if you find out that you did, you alter your move. This is effectively >>>using Nimzo for analysis during the game. IMHO saying you find your own >>>moves is hypocrisy. >>> >>>The poll is largely based by the popularity of the engine, not it's >>>qualities. You won't pick ... as your favorite analysis engine if you >>>never owned it. >>> >>>-- >>Dear Gian-Carlo, >> >>You may indeed be correct...I might be a hypocrite. I inittially struggled with >>the morality of blunder checking. To date, blunder checking hasn't found any >>blunder and so I haven't altered any of my moves. Still, it's inevitable that it >>will happen. Yes, when it does happen, I will then change my move. > >There are 2 possible ways of blunder checking(one is to check if there is a >blunder in your move and another one is to check if there is a blunder in the >tree that you analyzed). > >I understand that you only check if there is a blunder in the move that you send >but you do not check if there is a blunder in the analysis that the move is >based on. > >Knowledge about mistakes in the tree can be more productive. >A tactical mistake in the tree may lead to positional mistake in the move and >even if it does not change the opinion about the best move it still can lead to >better analysis of the next moves. > >Uri Dear Uri, Per usual, you are 100% correct, my friend. Yes, I could analyse my trees of analysis with a computer. But for me, this is just too much like having the computer assist me with each move in the tree as I discover it. Then each victory means that I have to share credit with a machine. More importantly, it would also remove the fun in playing CC. So, maybe I'll never get my rating much beyond 2500, but at least I'll have the fun of enjoying the challenge of each game. Instead, I'm old fashioned and only analyse my positions on a real chess board. So after I select my move, I set the position up in Nimzo 7.32. After that, I set the board up for my next CC game. When done, a couple minutes may have passed, I then consult Nimzo. If it shows no unexpected loss of material, then I send my move and return to my chess board. The one thing that made blunder checking in this fashion initially difficult is the fact that Nimzo 7.32 gives me an assessment which I find difficult to ignore. Given human nature, I almost always like my position more than my opponent's. But Nimzo's evaluation function is often erroneous (I noted this in my match games too) and frequently favors my opponent, sometimes with a big score. This is a bit upsetting, but after winning games in spite of Nimzo's assessments, I've learned to ignore them. Still, I admit to a sense of contentment when Nimzo finally favors my side. :-) All the best, Stephen
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.