Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Which commercial software is best for analysis

Author: Laurence Chen

Date: 10:56:14 03/28/99

Go up one level in this thread


On March 28, 1999 at 12:33:14, Alan Grotier wrote:

>
>My ELO is around 1300/1400.
>                                                                              In
>order to improve I must analyse my games.
>I need to improve my tactical and more so my stratigical knowledge and
>capability.Looking for commercial software for windows 95.
>
>I need down to earth clear explanations.
>Fritz or Rebel appear to be the best choice.
>
>Fritz excels at tactics but apparently is weak in stratigic or positional
>knowledge.The user interface is exceptional as is the analysis features.
>
>Rebel however is more "rounded" having more overall knowledge,but is a Dos
>program and perhaps not so user friendly and cumbersome analysis features
>although very strong.
>
>Which one one purchase? Perhaps both? Perhaps there is better on the
>market.
>
>
>p
I don't think that Fritz 5 is weak in its positional understanding. On the
contrary, all chess engines are weak in positional understanding. Some engines
play some positions better than other engines, and that is difference among
different engines. If you want a Windows environment chess program than Fritz
would be a good choice, and also there are many winboard engines which works
with Fritz, a bonus because a player of your strength will have the opportunity
to pity yourself against weaker engine without the need to change the parameters
of the engine to play like a dumb player.
As I understanding you are looking to improve your chess ELO, I would recommend
you to improve your tactics, that is, the ability to calculate and see deeply
without moving pieces. Don't worry about positional understanding, what good is
if one dreams a brilliant plan only to be refuted by your opponent tactical
resourcefulness. Positional planning is not difficult as many may believe, it's
a myth to think that super-grandmaster are superior positional players whose
understanding is beyond the reach of an amateur. That's rubbish which a lot of
players believe, remember that these grandmasters must also be very good in
tactics otherwise they wouldn't be grandmasters. Because tactics to grandmaster
has become part of their arsenal, and it's second nature to them, they devote
their attention to positional play. So one should first master tactics before
trying to master the finer points of positional play. Best regards,
Laurence Chen



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.