Author: Albert Silver
Date: 16:03:07 01/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
I'm short of time now, but would like to address a few points all the same:
>>> But even for this type of automated "interactive" analysis, the
<snip>
>Yes, I know about this.
Fine, but you said it only ran in automatic pilot and claimed and I quote:
"No I am not thinking of something else, and yes, CA does give you some nice
controls for "interactive" analysis; but when I am talking about interactive
analysis of positions I mean you are sitting in front of the monitor and
controlling the analysis the whole time, not that you set some parameters and
walk away. To me that is not really interactive any more than a pilot turning on
an autopilot by plugging in some numbers, and then going to sleep, is
"interactive".
This suggests you thought it ONLY ran in automatic pilot, else why the
complaint?
>>>But I can assure you that at the top level there is much more to correspondence
>>>play than just plugging a position into a computer. I have run into many players
>>>rated around ~2300-2350 doing (I believe) this, but not any players rated ~2600.
>>
>>You should talk with Uri Blass.
>
>I have read what Blass says. I don't believe Blass has played in as strong of
>events as the cat 13 section I am currently playing, where the average rating is
>2563. I have several opponents who, if they had followed a computers advice, no
>matter which program, they would have lost the game. Instead they were able to
>salvage draws. Blass also did not just set up his favourite program and let it
>make all his moves. He used multiple engines and multiple analysis methods. He
>used engines as analysis tools, not all knowing oracles.
Yes, he guided the engines, helping them search forward towards interesting
lines. I'm aware he didn't just let them run, but the fact is that the engines
did the calculating and evaluating, subject to his supervision.
>
>>>By the way, OTB GM John Nunn is one of the editors of my book, and he has not
>>>had any negative comments regarding my section on engine tournaments. I think
>>>many people, both OTB players and correspondence players, have been keeping
>>>their program use tricks secret.
>>
>>I tend to disagree. I have instructed classes of masters and grandmasters in the
>>use of both CA and CB, and have found their knowledge of these programs to be
>>rudimentary for the most part. Naturally, there are true power-user players, but
>>I think they are a strict minority.
>
>I would think that in a class you would only get those GM students with
>rudimentary computer knowledge, based on what the class is for. I doesn't make
>sense to in one breath say GM's in general have rudimentary knowledge of these
>programs and then next only refer to those GM's taking a class from you. For
>example I seriously doubt GM Nunn, who is very experienced with computers, was
No of course not, but I would certainly rank him as a power-user. Not a CA
power-user, but a power-user nonetheless. As to the GMs, many of them thought
they knew a lot about their programs until they found otherwise.
>>>>>>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?
>>>
>>>I have already mentioned the two biggest ones: many strong engines supported and
>>>the ability (in Fritz) to run tournaments.
>>
>>You can run tournaments in CA, though the support is certainly not as extensive
>>as in Fritz. However you claimed this severely hampered its use as a top-level
>>analysis tool, and with all due respect, I think that's bunk.
>
>And I know it isn't bunk. I didn't win the US corr championship, twice, by using
>bunk methods. I didn't win a world championship semi-finals by the highest score
>in any of the sections, 9/10, by using bunk methods.
I don't know why you keep throwing titles in my face, nor do I see the
relevance. I'm not claiming you don't know how to analyse, I'm saying you
underestimate CA. The question isn't whether CB or Fritz are top-level tools, as
I never questioned this, and still do not. You questioned CA as a top-level
tool, and that has been the core of the argument.
But also please remember I
>am not saying that CA can't be a top-level analysis tool. It can be. It just has
>some limitations, like all programs do. One of CA's biggest limitations is its
>more limited support of chess engines. This is just a simple fact. Can you run
>Fritz, Junior or Hiarcs in CA? No. This _is_ a limitation of CA.
Yes, it is.
>>That you found a way to use engine tournaments as an analysis tool is laudable,
>>but to claim that without identical support to Fritz, CA does have it after all,
>>it is no longer a top-level tool.... That's silly as you say.
>
>I don't say CA is not a top level tool. I say it is missing a top level feature.
You said "These limitations of Chess Assistant are all severe for top level
analysis."
>edge over Fritz? If you are working with trees, yes! But trees, in my opinion,
>are mostly more suitable for chess study, learning opening repertoirs and such,
>than chess analysis. My focus is and always has been on analysis, so I don't
>talk so much about trees, although they do of course have a place in analysis as
>well. It is just that trees have a relatively lesser importance for analysis,
>compared to the importance of trees for studying opening repetoirs.
Ok, this is a point of misunderstanding then. When I speak of analysis, I think
of the game as a whole, and not exclusively middle-game analysis. You are saying
that this is your main focus of attention, and not openings, where CA is clearly
superior. If your only complaint is the lack of greater engine support, and this
is the most important aspect of middlegame analysis in your view, then you are
correct.
>>If not, please give the
>>exact search conditions as I'd like to see this for myself.
>
>Get "Comprehensive chess endings" (a database that contains _only_ endgames).
>Search for a specific number of pieces, and nothing else. Material of anything
>other than 2-32 pieces. You can try 3-32, or 8-8, doesn't matter. Anyway, it
>doesn't matter. You aren't meaning to say that CA is bug free, are you? I don't
>know of any complex but bug free program.
Not at all, but this is not a bug I've encountered. I'll look into this, but am
short of time tonight.
>>I'd suggest a closer look at the CA manual. ALL of the above can be found in CA,
>>except for the last item.
>
>I don't believe CA can backsolve, which is what makes this powerful in bookup.
>Am I mistaken?
Yes. Without meaning to be rude, I'd point out that you also listed a number of
features, that supposedly were also absent in CA and which are not.
>Can you have CA add _all_ the posible transpositions to the tree
>_automatically_, with the subsequent change of statistics? If so, I have not
>found it and I should take your class.
I'm not sure what you mean. If at the 9th move it says that (this is
hypoethetical and the opening unimportant) Qd2 has yielded 45% wins that
statistic is absolute as regards the tree. The tree is a position tree and
already takes into account all transpositions at all times.
Can CA then do a backsolve of the
>evaluations, so you can see how the evaluations changed? If so, I haven't seen
>it and I should take your class.
Yes, you can do this for either the entire tree or for a specific variation.
It's called Minimax in CA.
>>Within the tree, I can ask optimistic Shredder or buggy Tiger to:
>
>You make it sound like I don't like or use Shredder or Tiger. Nothing could be
>further from the truth.
>
>>a) Analyse the current position
>>b) Analyse the current position and then play against itself from there
>>presenting the results.
>>c) Automatically search for new moves. In other words, just tell the engine to
>>find an adequate opening novelty if possible.
>>d) Expand the best lines.
>>e) Check the variation in question with engine analysis.
>>f) Check the variation and try to find opening novelties in the entire
>>variation.
>
>Fritz can do those things too.
Truly, it can do all this in the tree? I have underestimated it too then and
will check this out. Though building large trees in CB or Fritz is pretty much
impossible in a practical manner.
>Albert, I can see you love CA. I do too.
Yes, I do. Peace.
Albert
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.