Author: Mark Young
Date: 19:45:43 12/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2003 at 22:21:22, margolies,marc wrote: > >I think this poster committed an ergo propter hoc fallacy. >Why should it be surprising that Kasparov's analysis comports with Shredder's >analysis? We should actually be surprised if the opposite were true-- You need to read my statement again. I said Shredder found shots that Kasparov missed. And the computer seems to be correct. This is what I found surprising and made me take notice, but the computer is far from perfect. I do not >think Gaza Kimovitch would even allow this as he used shredder and his >brothers when composing his modern assessment of old games. >In my opinion, a fine job is how the author is showing the reader more chess >sense than a computer program would. Offering the comportment of an identity is >not enough. You miss the point. No one is saying take humans out of the process. The point is you can have high quality analysis for you personal games. Much better then I thought. > >On December 20, 2003 at 21:24:36, Mark Young wrote: > >>After finding a PGN file of all games in GM Kasparov book My Great Predecessors. >>I wanted to see how well of a job Chessbase and Shredder 7.04 would do in >>analysing the same games as GM Kasparov. After about 2 weeks of crunching the >>computer finnish all games. I must say I was very pleased with the results. >> >>Shredder pointed out not only tactical mistakes but positional mistakes that >>agreed very much with what GM Kasparov gave in his analysis. Even finding some >>shots that GM Kasparov missed. >> >>Hats off to chessbase, I never used this feature for my own games as I thought >>it was more of a gimmick the then a help, but after seeing the results I will.
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.