Author: Albert Silver
Date: 06:44:39 01/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
>>Naturally, the Fritz GUI doesn't have any interactive analysis.
>
>Fritz does have some capability, although I agree it is not as nice as CA's. But
>for top level analysis you want to be there to control it anyway,
The interactive analysis mode in CA is completely under the user's control.
That's why it is referred to as interactive, so perhaps you are thinking of
something else.
>>As to strength, the last I looked
>>Shredder 7.04 was still king of the hill, and it is very nicely supported by CA.
>
>Right, Shredder is highest rated. But just one high rated engine is not enough.
>There are many positions where Shredder gets very confused.
>>>Shredder and Tiger also have some evaluation quirks.
>>
>>Presumably, these quirks are unique to them as opposed to the engines you
>>mentioned. Could you be more specific?
>
>Sure. In many positions Shredder has an overly optimistic evaluation.
>_Extremely_ optimistic. Shredder will often show +3 pawns in drawn positions,
>where other engines show only a slight advantage. A +3 eval should = easy win,
>but in Shredder's case, much more so than with other programs, it often does
>not.
Much more so than other programs? If it is really so much more wrong than other
programs, how do you account for its superior results?
>Tiger has evaluation discontinuities. It will show one evaluation consistently
>and for very long time periods and then when you play 2 plies of the PV the
>evaluation can suddenly jump, sometimes by a pawn or more. Very confusing for
>analysis purposes.
I've seen this too on occasion, but more often with Fritz actually. Maybe this
was corrected with Fritz 8 though, which I don't own. It was present with Fritz
7.
>Fritz, Hiarcs and Junior do not have these quirks (they have others).
>
>>And try running an engine
>>>tournament from within Chess Assistant. These limitations of Chess Assistant are
>>>all severe for top level analysis.
>>
>>I have never heard a single master or grandmaster refer to or use an engine
>>tournament in either of the programs, nor can I see how this would affect their
>>top-level analysis.
>
>Engine tournaments can be a very good analysis tool in some circumstances. I
>have writen a book on chess analysis that will soon be published by Gambit that
>will talk about this, amoung other things. I also have correspondence IM and SIM
>titles, a correspondence rating in the world top 100 (and soon will have a
>correspondence GM title), so your above statement is no longer true.
I was referring to OTB IMs and GMs. I know two correspondence players here in
Rio, one who is also one of the top players in the world, and another who is an
SIM, but I admit to not being a big follower of the modality, mostly because I
think it has been spoiled by excessive use of engines.
>>Actually, CA has a LOT more to it than that over CB with all due respect.
>
>I agree. And with all due respect, CB also has a lot more over CA.
Such as?
>They each
>have strong and weak points. You talk almost as though CA is better than CB in
>every way. This is silliness.
Not every way. CB is more attractive, but it is less functional. I'd be curious
to know what aspects of its functionality you find to be superior.
>Yes CA is better than CB here. But I think Bookup is even better than CA for
>this.
I wouldn't know as I do not own BookUp. Could you tell me what aspects of
repertoire building you think are better?
>This is not true. Fritz can show you what it thinks of a move. There is even
>more than one way for Fritz to do it.
I don't know about more than one way, but you're otherwise correct, and I stand
corrected.
Albert
This page took 0.01 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.