Author: Robin Smith
Date: 00:03:23 01/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 2004 at 19:03:07, Albert Silver wrote: >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? The _only_ "complaint" (I would call it a comment) I have with CA in _this_ area is regarding limited number of engines support. You can sit and manually control analysis in almost any GUI, but in some you have more engines available. >>>>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. OK, so we both seem to agree Blass did what a lot of other top corr players these days do, use chess engines creatively. And by doing this he was able to beat some strong players. I don't see the relevance. It does not surprise me that Blass, who is knowlegable about both chess and chess programs, would do well. That said, Blass only has 8 ICCF rated games at the ICCF ratings web-site, so he has a relatively small number of rated games from which to make a judgement about the extent of engine use in correspondence chess. <snip> >>>>>>>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. You, in effect, call one of my analysis methods "bunk", and then wonder why I defend my qualifications? I should think it would be obvious. <snip> >>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." Yes. Just like I presume you would say CB/Fritz's relatively poor tree support is a severe limitation for top level analysis. But perhaps we have a different meaning of severe and you would not say this about CB. I think no chess program has everything, at least not yet. I believe CA, Fritz and CB all have important and missing features (severe limitations) for analysis. I am not trying to single out CA. >>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. I am not talking exclusively middlegame, but I do admit I am less familiar with using CA trees for opening analysis, since I mainly use bookup here. >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. Availability of many engines is important in all phases of the game, not just in the middlegame. The more strong engines the better. >>>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. Thanks. It has been driving me nuts. >>>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. How does one do it (backsolve)? I have changed evaluations in CA trees and the roots don't change, and when I go to the "tree", "tree operations", "minimax" menu I get a confusing (to me) dialog box. I just want to take the _existing_ tree and run a minimax on it so that it has all the evals & assessments in that same tree are updated. >>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. I mean let's say you have a very small tree, built from only 2 games. The first game has only 3 moves; 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 The second game has only 2 moves; 1.c4 Nf6. You make a tree from these two games. In the second game, the move 2.d4, were it to be played, would transpose into the position at the end of the first game. Bookup can both find and add such tranpositions to the "tree" (bookup doesn't call them trees) automatically. I have not found how to do this in CA. Is it possible? All I get is "game end" and a list of _all_ the possible moves in the position, not which of those possible moves (in this example 2.d4) transpose back into the tree. >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. I have tried to use the CA minimax, as I said above, but must confess I don't understand the dialog box that pops up. Another example of CA being harder,at least for me, to learn. Is there a simple way to just do a minimax on an existing tree? >>>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? Fritz can't do this with trees, but I wasn't talking about in trees. Fritz/CB can import games from a database into a single game, with variations, and then do the above on the game and all the variations. More or less the same thing, although CA's being able to do this in a tree is much nicer. >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. Yes. If the game/variations is too big then analysing it all, and sorting through it all, is cumbersome in Fritz. I like CA trees, even though as I stated before I still need to learn more about all the capabilities. (I would be more motivated to do so if CA supported more engines :-) >>Albert, I can see you love CA. I do too. > >Yes, I do. Peace. Peace. Robin > 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.