Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Book Up and CB7 --

Author: Dave Gomboc

Date: 22:07:13 04/11/99

Go up one level in this thread


On April 11, 1999 at 06:34:26, Phil Dixon wrote:

>I'd like opinions on the latest version of Bookup and the books you can buy for
>it.  Good/bad? Are the books worthwhile for someone who wants to improve opening
>knowledge? How does it compare with CB7?  What about the back/solving part of
>Bookup?
>
>Opinions, please!!
>
>A big THANK YOU in advance. :)
>
>Regards,
>Phil

I'm using Bookup/Windows 1.6.  It's pretty good.  I don't have a massive games
collection, what I do is enter my opening books into Bookup.  The sheer act of
entering all of the variations gives me the opportunity to see the major themes
of the positions that I might reach.  It minimaxes the book (they call it
"backsolving"), so you know which moves lead to what end result.  This is quite
useful, and contrary to the assertions of an insistent Komputer Korner, it is
done correctly.  Bookup can be configured either so that the backsolving is done
as you are moving around in the tree (this is what I do), or to backsolve in a
batch when you have the information you want in the book.

Bookup also has a training mode, where it will play one colour, either "best
play" or just any move in the book, then you play against it and see if you can
remember what to do properly.  It can record complete games for later retrieval,
though not in a terribly sophisticated way (e.g. indexed by last name or
rating).  It is not a full-blown database.

Overall, I like it.

I will now digress here a bit, because I have something to say to all the people
advertising their software with 3-d capabilities: I have yet to see a 3-d view
that I really find usable.  Software comes with "ooh! fancy 3-d board,
ray-traced pieces..." and who cares?  It never looks like a real chessboard
looks to me!  I lean as I analyze: if I looked straight down, I would be looking
at (d1,e1) or (d8,e8), or just back from them, depending on how wide the table
is.  I never get this perspective from software, the eyes are always positioned
much further back.  Sometimes you can change the azimuth angle of the board, but
the pieces don't turn with it, and it looks crappy, so what's the use?

The azimuth angle needs to be adjustable, and the pieces should change with the
board too, so that users can customize the view to where they find it
comfortable!  The pieces on the left side should look like they are leaning to
the left a bit; the pieces on the right should look like they are leaning to the
right a bit.  How much depends on your head position and orientation.  Allowing
the user to adjust the head's location and orientation will allow for turning
the board horizontally as well, of course.  Granted, this isn't a walk in the
park to do, but it's not rocket science either.  Anyone who took a couple of
graphics courses in computer science should be able to construct some solid
geometry Staunton figures and render them appropriately.  I hope this complaint
will cause it to happen.

Dave Gomboc



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.