Author: Lanny DiBartolomeo
Date: 14:30:55 12/18/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 1998 at 17:24:43, Komputer Korner wrote: >On December 18, 1998 at 16:48:26, Lanny DiBartolomeo 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 >> >>I am not arguing the point if it is good or not but the way Im doing it will be >>just as good what did these GMs do before the chess programs were out? how did a >>master increase to GM before the chess programs were out? The same way I am, >>going over my games finding weaknesses, here and there getting advice from >>stronger players and when I play solitair chess I can see how far off I am but >>other times I can see how close I am this shows me what positions Im good in or >>Bad in and can fix if you still find faults in your play and can fix it then >>your still growing its if you find faults and cant fix or the faults are so >>suttle you cant put your finger on it but at this point you need a GM or >>stronger player to show you this and I dont believe a chess engine would be able >>to show you this it cant explain to you the reason why. > >Of course if you are a lower rated player then you should study all the books >and tutorials you can and if you have a human teacher then use him but what if >you don't have a teacher? And if you have read almost all the chess books out >there as I have, what do you do next? Go over your tournament games of course. >My method uses all your methods plus it takes advantage of the new power of >chess engine strength. Your attitude is that chess engines have nothing to teach >you. If you are fighting a war and somebody offered a way to bombard the other >side (not a perfect bombardment but one that is effective nevertheless) then >wouldn't you use the new weapon. You sound like a luddite who is against >technology. All I am saying is use the tools available and CM6000 does not >provide the best tool short of getting a human master's advice. It's tutorials >are great but if your rating is beyond the tutorials then CM6000 doesn't do the >job that other higher end programs do. Use one and actually go over your >tournament games using the back and forward method and you will realize what I >mean. >-- >Komputer Korner whats a luddite? :))HAHAHA!! not being sarcastic it just sounds funny!
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.