Author: Robin Smith
Date: 14:59:20 04/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 18, 2003 at 10:56:13, F. Jermann wrote: >On April 17, 2003 at 21:15:07, Robin Smith wrote: > >>On April 17, 2003 at 16:59:14, Robert Pawlak wrote: >> >>>If you want flexibility and power, then ChessAssistant is your best bet. Don't >>>forget that the analysis process encompasses more than simply having a computer >>>blunder check a game. >>> >>>Bob (www.chessassistance.com) >> >>Bob, >> >>I disagree. ChessAssistant is a fine product, but ChessBase has many excellent >>analysis features that ChessAssistant cannot match. I use ChessBase for analysis >>almost exclusively. And for beginners or intermediate players even a playing >>program like Fritz does an excellent job. It really depends on what kind of >>analysis the poster wants to do. For most situations my choice would be a >>chessbase product. >> >>Robin > >I have both products (Fritz 8 + Chessbase 8, ChessAssistant 7.1) and I am think >that the analysis features of CA 7.1 are BY FAR superior to the CB products. >What feature do you miss in CA? > >Frank Hi Frank, I have all 3 programs as well. CA is a fine product, but I personally use CB the most. ChessBase has the largest number of the very strongest analysis engines available. For GM level analysis one or two strong engines is not enough. Now that Tiger 15 is coming out again in CB format, ALL the strongest engines can be run from within CB. CA handles trees better, and searches databases faster, but patience (or a fast machine) and some creativity can get around these CB limitations. There are no ways around the limited number of analysis engines in CA that I am aware of. I also prefer the CB GUI more, but that could just be because I am more familiar with it (since I use it more). What are the features of CA you like most for analysis? Robin
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.