Author: Lanny DiBartolomeo
Date: 12:56:22 12/18/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 1998 at 12:57:08, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: >On December 18, 1998 at 03:28:13, Komputer Korner wrote: > >>On December 18, 1998 at 03:24:21, blass uri wrote: >> >>> >>>On December 18, 1998 at 02:54:53, Komputer Korner wrote: >>> >>>>On December 17, 1998 at 09:50:25, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 16, 1998 at 17:11:20, Komputer Korner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>This is good news about the CM7 opening book editor, but if they don't also add >>>>>>the capability of analyzing in player player mode with the engine showing on >>>>>>screen analysis and score eval while taking back and moving forward moves, then >>>>>>ChessMaster will still remain a toy program. This is the single most important >>>>>>feature in chess programs which all the high end programs have. >>>>>>-- >>>>>>Komputer Korner >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>KK, exactly why do *you* get to decide what's the "single most important >>>>>feature"? I've said it before, and I'm saying it again: I'm a USCF Master >>>>>(pretty strong and serious), and I haven't used this feature in at least a year. >>>>>My best friend is a USCF Master...he doesn't use it either. Our City Champion is >>>>>a USCF 2300, and I asked him what he uses his computer for...he uses it to play >>>>>games, and to analyse games from his students. >>>>> >>>>>So tell me....since we three serious, master-level players don't consider this >>>>>feature very important *at all*, exactly how is it the 'single most important' >>>>>feature? >>>>> >>>>>Yes, I know that you know chess software, but you simply don't speak for all (or >>>>>probably evenb a majority) of computer-using chess players? >>>>> >>>>>Your obsessing on features that many consider trivial (opening book editor, this >>>>>analysis mode) detracts from your toherwise informative and even-handed analysis >>>>>of these programs. >>>>> >>>>>Chris Dorr >>>>>USCF Life Master >>>> >>>>Well then you simply aren't using computers to their fullest extent in helping >>>>you study chess. I don't care what your rating is. Even Kasparov uses player >>>>player mode with on screen PV analysis to look at positions. He isn't looking at >>>>the score evaluation of course but he is certainly looking at the PVs. Buy a top >>>>rated prgram like Rebel 10, M-Chess Pro 8 , Junior 5 or the upcoming Hiarcs 7 >>>>and use them properly to analyze positions and you will begin to understand how >>>>to study chess with chess engines. Perhaps an opening book editor isn't that >>>>important for some even though it has helped me win more than 1 game, but >>>>analysis in player player mode with on screen analysis of PVs IS the most >>>>important feature of a chess program. CM 6000 doesn't have that. It could be >>>>possible to set up a macro with an add on utility as Richard Fowell says to work >>>>around this but since all top chess programs have this feature, then I have the >>>>right to call CM6000 a toy program without that feature. >>>>-- >>>>Komputer Korner >>> >>>I do not think it is a big problem because I can use take back and switch sides >>>if I want to see the PV >>> >>>Uri >> >>Yes but that slows you down considerably. Since this should be your number 1 >>activity in studying chess, a lot of time will be wasted. >>-- >>Komputer Korner > >KK, I don't mean this offensively at all. > >But what are your qualifications to tell others exactly what their 'number 1 >activity in studying chess' should be? Specifically, I would like to know > >1. Are you recognized as a Master by any organization (Candadian, USCF, FIDE, >etc.) ? What is your current rating? You don't have to be a Master to be a good >teacher, but you do have to have a relatively high rating to impart chess >wisdom, and have it taked seriously. > >2. How many years experience do you have as a trainer or coach (so that we have >a basis for evaluating how seriously to take you training recommendtions) ? > >3. How have your students done in tournament play? How much has their >strength/rating increased? In order that we can tell whether or not your >training recommendations work. > >I'm not trying to be sarcastic, or attacking at all. As a reviewer, you are >extremely well qualified, but before we give credence to your training advice, >I'd like to know where it's coming from. > >Fair is fair, so I'll answer these questions about me first, since I disagree >with your training recommendations, and would advise otherwise. > > >1. I am recognized by the USCF as a Life Master. My current rating has dropped >below USCF 2200, I am currently around USCF 2150 or so. I need 2 more games to >have my FIDE rating published. Currently, it would be about 2125. > >2. I have been professionally teaching chess since 1990. I have worked >extensively with both individual students, and with classes and chess camps. > >3. My students have won state grade level championships (different students) for >fifth, sixth, seventh, eight, and ninth grades. One has finished second in the >National Junior H.S. championship. One has won the state Junior H.S. >Championship. I have worked with students from 5 years old to 80 years old. The >average improvement for my students in their first year of lessons with me has >been about 300 points USCF, compared to an average of their non-lesson-taking >peers of less than 100 points. > >I say these things not to attack you, or to make others think differently about >either you or me, but because you are telling the readers that they shoudl be >focused on using the computer to go back and forth through their games as their >primary training focus. I don't believe that they should. > >For the vast majority of USCF 900-1500 students, I believe that a complete >evaluation of all tournment games should be their first priority. CM6K does this >very well, with it's annotation features. Their second priority should be >developing an understanding of how a game 'flows', i.e. how it evolves from an >opening to a middlegame, to an ending. This they can do by playing through games >from a database in a particulr opening. By playing through many of them quickly, >they can start to see where this piece goes, or how this pawn structure mutates >into this kind of attack. Simply having the program evaluate positions while >going back and forth (what you seem to be advocating) does *nothing* to enhance >this goal. These two goals go well together. When they have a decent >understanding of these game flows, then they should move on to playing many >games against a variety of players rated within 200 points of them (both better >and worse) to get a feel for making decisions in the kinds of positions likely >to arise from their openings; and then having these games analysed by the >program too. Again, CM6K's handicapping and customization features are truly >excellent for this. Finally, I believe that graphing their games (ala Lev >Alburt) is vital. Compare CM6K's numeric evaluations to those done by the >student himself (self-annotation is a requisite), and see what kinds of errors >are happening (Is your king getting attacked early in the middlegame frequently, >because you leave it in the center too long? Are you getting beaten because you >allow bad pawn structures? Are you sacrificing material too readily? Are you >missing simple tactics?), and attacking your errors in order of importance. > >If the average USCF player (current average rating is about 1300-1400), wants to >improve quickly, I would advise them to do what I have suggested above, and work >through the CM6K tutorials. For most players, I believe this will halp them much >more than going back and forth through a single game or a few games, and seeing >how a program evaulates the position. > >I'm interested to hear how you think a developing player should use the computer >to help their progress. > >Thanks, > >Chris Dorr >USCF Life Master Very Excellent advice! I have always believed in this type of training and even train this way still and forever. I do alot of chess puzzles (positional,tactical,endgame)I play solitair chess and I am at master strength and feel my improvement is still growing! I play cm6000 standard time controls after, have it analyse my games and I go over these games and search for a related weakness be it trouble against the bishop pair or underestimating things in situations then I fix these things. I write down my thought process and see if there is a "wrong pattern" in my thinking. And once I attain IM I will then go into serious book-up or if I feel by not booking up is slowing down my chess growth. I told this as a reply to K K in his posts and he called me a lazy chessplayer and said I didnt really want to improve(im more words than not) of course I failed to mention to him I was Master But that shouldnt Matter ! I spend alot of time, too much to be booking up when I feel I should be putting my energy into learning and UNDERSTANDING the hidden details of the game.
This page took 0.02 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.