Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 08:31:04 12/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 07, 2002 at 16:59:55, Mike S. wrote: <snip> >But I guess very strong players who use engines for "serious" important >analysis, i.e. opening novelties for a GM tournament, will also choose engines >by studying their games and/or by playing against them themselves. <snip> >Regards, >M.Scheidl This points to an interesting question. When a strong player, like a GM, uses a chess engine during analysis, what *exactly* does he do? One extreme would be to simply have the chess engine do an "overnight analysis" with zero human intervention. Another extreme is the one you mentioned, playing "games" from a position of interest. There is a vast middle ground between these two extremes. I am no GM, but do use Fritz for analysis of my games and GM games. I often allow the beast [Fritz] to come up with a suggested line. Then I start exploring alternative moves, which look interesting to me. Since I am a chess amateur, most of my ideas are instantly proven to be "dumb" by the beast. So, there are interactive modes for doing computer-assisted analysis. I suspect a middle-ground mode is used much more often than the extremes. You might think of such an interactive mode as being a "conversation" between the human analyst and the chess engine "analyst." It's like a couple of friends working together cooperatively to do the analysis. Bob D.
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.