Author: Komputer Korner
Date: 14:14:05 12/18/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 1998 at 16:54:37, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: >On December 18, 1998 at 16:24:12, Komputer Korner wrote: > >>On December 18, 1998 at 15:56:22, Lanny DiBartolomeo wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>You are not using a chess program to it's fullest extent. After using player >>player mode with on screen engine analysis of a strong positional engine to go >>over your games, you will soon realize that you have missed out on an incredible >>resource that computer chess programs can provide. Your way of training has some >>merit but it can't approach the "Truth to the position approach" that player >>player mode with taking back and moving forward with on screen engine analysis >>provides. All GMs will tell you this. You must study your games intensively >>using this approach. In fact all chess teachers use this approach when looking >>at positions with their students. There is no substitute for it and I am >>astonished that you would argue otherwise. >>Komputer Korner > >All GM's? > >Please tell that to my former teacher GM Gregory Kaidanov (You know...FIDE >2600+?). He strongly supported the training regimen that I described above. >Shall I tell him that you know more about chess and chess teaching than he does? >I'm sure he'll be impressed. > >Again, I would truly like to know your qualifications to make such statements. >Another master agreed with me in the above cited post. One of the formost >trainers and players (GM Kaidanov) in the U.S. strongly agreed with my approach. >Please tell me what your qualifications are to disagree? > >This 'truth of the position' method does not have a great deal relevance to the >majority of players. A chess game is not a series of static positions; perhaps >it is to a computer (which is why I disagree with your recommendattion), but to >a human, it is a whole, that flows throughout it's course. You method does >*absolutely nothing* to help one's understanding of that. One must understand >how this opening leads to these typical pawn structures, which lead to these >types of middlegame attacks, ad so on. The static evaluation of a position does >very little to tell a player why this pawn structure is weak, or why that piece >doesn't belong here in these type of lines. The mistakes that most players make >(myself included) won't be fixed by watching some PV go from +1.55 to +1.95. Why >do you think they will? > >Please post your qualifications. Are you a Master? What is your rating? What >have your students done? Do you have any? If a 1600 is telling me (a 2150) that >his training method is better than mine, then I will ask why he is still a 1600. >This is just as disrespectful and inappropriate as me telling GM Kaidanov that >his training methods are inferior to mine. He will say 'I am a 2650....you are a >2150...don't you think I know a bit more about chess than you? I've been a >teacher for 15 years...you haven't been...don't you think I know a bit more >about chess education and training than you?" > >He'd be right. So please, before this discussion goes further, tell us what >qualifies you to make such generalizations and statements. > >Chris Dorr >USCF Life Master Kaidanov then surely hasn't used computers to help with going over one's games. I didn't say your methods were worthless only that you are not using the fill power of a chess engine. By looking at each position in your games very intensively with "my" method it is possible to get a greater understanding of an opening and the middlegame plans. I am not saying to slavishly look at the score evaluation but that to look at the PVs that the engine produces. How does your method give you a greater understanding of your games. If you don't go over them with my method then you are forced to ask a human teacher to obtain this info. However we both agreed that a human teacher is best, but not everybody can afford this or has access to a human master. Then what. What do do you next?. Using "my" method gives you a chance to understand your mistakes. Without a human teacher you don't really have a method to improve your play. Don't forget my method also includes everything your "method" does as far as database and opening work does. I am doing all of the work you are doing and besides am using the back and forward method besides. So in the end I am using all your tools PLUS another tool which I consider the most important one if we disregard human teaching for reasons explained above. By the way my highest rating was 2023. I don't have the time anymore to study chess because I am too busy explaining things to emotional people like you. -- Komputer Korner --
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.