Author: Komputer Korner
Date: 23:43:43 12/21/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 1998 at 06:44:58, blass uri wrote: > >On December 21, 1998 at 03:41:00, Komputer Korner wrote: > > >>I can't believe that 3 US masters are arguing against going over their games >>move by move when the whole chess world DOES this. Sure CM6000 can be used to >>play against and does have auto annotate, but are 3 US masters arguing that it >>is not necessary to go over their games move by move? If they think that just >>because they now have a computer to play against , that is enough ;they are >>sadly mistaken. Every chess player worth his salt looks at his games in post >>mortem. This happened before computers came along and it happens with them. So >>we now have the ridiculous situation that 3 US masters say that it is not >>necessary to do this. They say that All you have to do is play against a chess >>engine and use it's auto annotate overnight and that is all you need the >>computer for to improve. So they say no need to go over your games move by move. > >They did not say that playing is alll that you have to do. >They only said that it is one of the things that can help you > >You can also use chessmaster6000 to go over your games move by move. >It is less convenient to do it but if you give the computer at least some >minutes for every move then it is not an important disadvantage (If you give it >only some seconds per move then I agree that it is better to use other programs >also because of the fact that chessmaster is not very good at blitz) > >The fact that you can change personalities is an important advantage of >chessmaster6000 >If you want to learn an opening that you prepare against your opponent and you >know that you understand a positional idea that the computer does not >understand. > >If you use fritz5 then you cannot make the program understand the position so >you cannot learn much from playing against it. > >If you use chessmaster then you can change parameters and make the computer >understand the position. > >This is the reason that I believe that chessmaster6000 is one of the most >important programs for grandmasters. > >I am not close to be a grandmaster and I think that it is interesting to ask >grandmasters about it. > >Maybe they did not think about using the computer in this way and this is the >reason that they do not use chessmaster6000. > >>They say no need to use the computer in player player mode with engine PVs >>showing on screen. They say that the whole historical practice of players >>looking at their games after it is finished by taking back moves and moving >>forward can be thrown out the window. > >They did not say that the whole historical practice of players looking at their >games after it is finished by taking back moves and moving forword can be thrown >out the window. > >Uri This changing personality thing is interesting. However you are never sure that the program will understand any position. However I must admit it has merit if only that it substitutes for buying a lot of other engines. However the argument is still 1) move by move analysis of one's own games vs 2) tactical puzzle solving and looking at GM games Chris Dorr and 3 other masters seem to be saying that 2 is more important than 1. How important merely playing is can be seen by many who never improve their whole lives so clearly only playing is not the most important way to improve. So it comes down to 1 vs 2. I say 1 is more important and Chris says 2 is more important. I agree that looking at GM games is important but we don't need a chess engine to do that. It may be that both ways are equally valid. We need more opinions from other masters. -- Komputer Korner
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.