Author: Lawrence S. Tamarkin
Date: 00:27:59 01/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
I agree with you. I'm sick of seeing various GM's and IM's castigate different chess programs. Often when commenting on the attrubits of programs, (or lack of), these guys will say that chess programs have little use for them, or was only useful in checking some analysis, or they or not too good, or the databases have little use, or whatever. I think (but am not completely sure), that John Nunn is one of the exceptions, in that he uses all these programs & databases, writes books using them, and even writes his own software, and contructs methodolies for testing them. But I get the feeling when it comes to a lot of the other player's, that they are getting them for free, use them all the time to prepare against each other, but then when some everyday people like ourselves (who pay full price, and buy alot of them), ask them what they think, its back to the disparaging comentary! Kramnik said some nice things about Junior in a recent chess base magazine, at that's a good sign of change, but again, the Chess Base guy gave him all the software for free, so what's he gonna do, say it sucks? Still, I'm glad he did compement the program, as Anand prefered not to comment much, and especially NOT MUCH, after Rebel 10 beat him in that series in Ishia... mrslug - the inkompetent chess software addict! On January 21, 1999 at 19:09:16, Albert Silver wrote: > I find Nunn's use of computers and his opinions somewhat intriguing. While >it is clear he understands the uses of them, and certainly makes use, as has >been shown in his updated versions of certain classic books, the upcoming NCO, >and the series on simplified endgames. > I have a copy of his recently published Secrets of Practical Chess (which I >have not read bar one chapter though it is on the top of my reading list) in >which there is a final chapter called "Using a Computer". As the whole book is >devoted to teaching what he believes to be essential knowledge to all players, >one would expect this last chapter to reveal techniques or methods to maximize >the use of machines. Not so. Instead he only tells us some of his frustrating >experiences with programs, not realizing that many of the problems encountered >had already been very much resolved 'before' his book came out. Very curiously, >he only mentions Fritz 4 (?!) in the chapter. I found this to be absolutely >astonishing and in my opinion completely negates the value of any opinions he >may have on programs. Obviously, he tells us that they understand nothing of >anything (he presumes ALL programs to be like Fritz 4) and furthermore plays >down any value they might have as a partner. The one positive comment he has is >that they can be useful (glad to know they have 'some' use) to play out certain >positions (as recommended by Mark Dvoretsky). He also shares with us a test in >which he took the 15 most important theoretical novelties from Informant 68 and >put ol' Fritz to the test. The computer only found a lousy three! Which is not >all bad when you think of it he adds. What on earth this is supposed to prove is >beyond me. Moreover, he presents two successes and one failure. The failure was >absurd to say the least. He begins by noting the machine did not choose the >stupendous combination, and furthermore, refuted it by finding a defense making >the whole line unclear at best. Yes, it was clearly a stinking failure.... >Before I go on, I'd just like to note for the record that I also think Nunn one >of the BEST writers on chess, so this should be seen as a somewhat >tongue-in-cheek attitude to show that clearly many of the 'expert' GMs still >don't know how to make the most of their programs. > On databases, he says practically nothing on how to use them, merely what >features they should include. He also goes on and on on how bad the available >databases are. In many ways he is quite right when commenting on the general >state of the million game databases available: multiple names for the same >players, multiple names for events, wrong moves, etc.... But, and this is >important when considering that he uses Chessbase, the two highest quality >databases in these regards are without a doubt those issued by Chessbase itself >and Chess Assistant. Instead of just telling us how bad they all are, why not >give us a few ideas on where to get a good one (or doesn't he know?)? >I have just acquired the newest updated database of Chessbase called BIG '99 (I >realize that when he wrote his material, he probably only had access to the >smaller 875,000 game BIG '98). I will make a small comparison to a popular >database with serious header problems, Ultimate Game Collection II (I don't have >the 3rd but imagine it has the same problems): >UGC II (with 1,005,474 games) has 151,607 players listed as well as no less than >41,722 events! >Big '99 (with 1,114,429 games) has 73,050 players and a mere 11,249 events. >Even Chess Assistant 3.0's 800,000 database only had 78,000 players (number of >events are harder to determine in it because of the way it is sorted). I haven't >received the newer 4.0 yet so cannot comment on the 1,000,000 database that >accompanies it. > All in all, I can only say it is strange to read this from someone whom I'd >assumed to be somewhat of an authority on the matter (mostly based on all of the >computer based material he has released). > > Albert Silver
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.