Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 07:39:21 12/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 28, 2002 at 22:45:35, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On December 28, 2002 at 19:42:38, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On December 28, 2002 at 09:45:02, Drexel,Michael wrote: >> >>>[D] 8/8/pp6/2pp2p1/3p2Pk/3P1K1P/5PP1/8 b - - 0 1 >>> >>>Ruffian is the best analysis-engine I can think of. >>>Ruffian 1.0.1 (96 MB hash)on Athlon@1.6Ghz finds the mate in 13 >>>in 5 sec (Yes 0:05!!) . This is amazing. >>>hey you out there with your 2.8 Ghz Xeons and Deep Fritz 7 engines. >>>Try to beat that! >>>hope Per-ola will bring out a native Chessbase version of this great program >>>soon because there exists some problems with UCI version in Chessbase GUI. >>>I would pay 25$ for a native CB engine. >>>I dont need chess engines with much positional knowledge for analysis. every >>>chessplayer >2200 has much more positional knowledge than all chess-engines >>>together. >> >>Aside from using Ruffian to find mates, what would you use it for? What does >>any chess master do with a chess engine during analysis, and why? Also, other >>than positional analyses, what else do you NOT use a chess analysis engine for? >>How can you tell when you are becoming too dependent on the analysis engine? >> >>I really do want to know. >> >>Incidentally, I am not a chess master. >> >>Bob D. > >I am not a chess master too. my playing strength is near 2300 ELO. You mean you do not yet have the IM title. In my book, however, anyone with 2200+ ELO is playing at the master level in "slow" games. Then there are those who play 2400+ in ICC Blitz &/or Bullet. I don't know how to catagorize them. : ) > >I use chess engines only to go quickly through my games. it doesnt help much to >improve your strength, but it is much easier to forget a chess game if you know >where you went wrong. >even if you win a chess game quite convincingly, there are some things you were >not sure about during play. >I dont like to wake up in the middle of the night and set up a position just to >make something clear. > >Im able to analyse most of my games in not more than 20 minutes with the help of >an engine. that is why I prefer fast searchers. the engine has not much time for >analysing a specific position. I am too dependent on analysis engines but I have >not enough time to analyse my games thorough without. > >you look at the 5 or 6 best lines in analysis mode and decide quickly which >lines are worth for more investigation. this is just a matter of experience. >when everything seemed to be clear you went on to the next move until game is >finished or at least decided. if a position is too complicated mark it unclear >which of course simply means: I dont know. I find it convenient to have my chess engine analyze my games overnight or while I'm away. That seems to give better results. Especially nice is the feature of Fritz to adjust the analysis parameters. If only one game is to be analyzed, Fritz can be asked to do a much more thorough job than if numerous games must be analyzed overnight. Later, I very quickly go through the overnight findings just to get a "feel" for what was discovered. Then I select that which I will study more closely. As for "forgetting one's game": Before I retired from tournament chess, I played many serious over-the-board games lasting from four to eight hours. That's a lot of mental effort! Those games I did NOT forget. Nowadays, my chess is limited to blitz, and I play only rarely. In my view, Blitz is a legitimate form of the game. It would be nice to play 2400-level blitz at ICC. I use the computer to identify my blunders in blitz so that I can become better at playing blitz, and not so that I can become better at slow chess. Recently, I played 60+ blitz games after several years of inactivity. They were filled with blunders. These are what I'm looking at now. Hypothesis: If one wishes to get better at blitz, one must purge the blunders out of one's blitz games. For the last several years, I have limited myself to in-depth analysis of GM games. Also, I used to enjoy creating new opening repertoires. The above gives an overview of a "user's" use of chess software. Perhaps other users have different uses for the software. 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.