Author: Melvin S. Schwartz
Date: 11:26:02 02/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 27, 2000 at 23:00:40, Laurence Chen wrote: >On February 27, 2000 at 20:01:43, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >>On February 27, 2000 at 13:50:21, Laurence Chen wrote: >> >>>On February 27, 2000 at 12:36:23, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >>> >>>>On February 26, 2000 at 18:01:31, Pete Galati wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 26, 2000 at 14:53:52, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I am interested in what others think is the best program to analyze their games >>>>>>against other humans. It would be helpful if you could explain the reason for >>>>>>your choice. >>>>>> >>>>>>All opinions will be appreciated. Those that do not respond will be forgiven, >>>>>>though not held in the highest esteem. :-) >>>>>> >>>>>>Regards, >>>>>>Mel >>>>> >>>>>I like annotating games with Crafty because for me it's the easiest way to be >>>>>very specific about how I want the game annotated. Downsides to this? It's not >>>>>a gui proceedure, more like a dos command line type of thing, for example, type >>>>>annotate in Crafty, and it will display how to go about the ccommand: >>>>> >>>>>Crafty v17.8 >>>>> >>>>>White(1): annotate >>>>>usage: annotate <file> <color> <moves> <margin> <time> [nmoves] >>>>>White(1): >>>>> >>>>>So if I entered: annotate mygame.pgn w 10 .75 120" What Crafty would do would >>>>>be to annotate the file "mygame.pgn", only the white side of the board (w), it >>>>>would start it's annotations at move 10, to a margin of 3/4 pawn difference >>>>>between the best move Crafty calculated and the move made in the game, and it >>>>>would calculate each move for 120 seconds (2 minutes of course). >>>>> >>>>>To me, this is better than doing it with an interfaced program. Here's a game I >>>>>annotated that way http://members.xoom.com/avochess/lostgame.htm Someone on >>>>>usenet pointed out that Crafty missed a mate, could be, I'm not sure. I >>>>>annotated that game for 4 minutes a move on my slow computer. >>>>> >>>>>So, to _me_, Crafty is the best choice, but if you need an interface to get the >>>>>job done, then it's the worst choice. >>>>> >>>>>Pete >>>> >>>>Hello Pete, >>>> >>>>I don't have Crafty but do have a number of commercial programs. I am wondering >>>>if Shredder 4, Junior 6, or some other commercial program offer something more >>>>than what I presently have: Rebel-Tiger, Fritz 5.32, Hiarcs 7.32, Rebel-Century, >>>>Chessmaster 7000, and CSTal 2.03. I would like to use just one program to >>>>analyze my games - ideal situation - but perhaps that would not give a thorough >>>>analyzation. At most I could see using two programs but beyond that it would be >>>>to time consuming. >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>>Mel >>>What do you consider "ideal situation"? >>****************************************************************************** >>By that I mean one program that is superior in all aspects to the others. If you >>read the other reply to my original post, then you would see there are people >>using even more than two programs to analyze their games. >>************************************************************************** >> Any of the chess engines you already >>>have can do a very good job in finding missed tactical oportunities or mistakes. >>> Unless you are looking for an engine which will annotate positional mistakes or >>>ideas, then you will have to wait for a very very very long time in the future. >>>Because all chess engine of today excel in tactics, but long strategical >>>planning is an area which human players are far superior to chess engines, and >>>the only solution to this problem is to hire a chess coach, perhaps a >>>International Master is sufficient if one cannot afford a Grandmaster. >>>Laurence >>********************** >>:-) >Superior in what sense ??? All the top chess engines perform well in tactics. >Some may be able to see tactics better than others, but that is all an illusion. >Just because engine A is able to solve test suite ### and engine B is not able >to solve test suite &&& does not prove that A is better than B, because for sure >there is a &&& position which engine A fails to solve and B is able to solve. I >think it boils down to personal taste and style which a chess engine has to >offer. My favorite engine is Junior/Deep Junior, not because it is number one in >the SSDF. It is because of the playing style of the chess engine. It is a >playing style which is close to my playing style. It is aggressive, and likes to >play quiet moves to improve the position. Of course, not hyper-aggressive as >Fritz. Besides I don't use the chess engines to annotate games, I personally >find this type of exercise too passive, and not very productive because I cannot >learn much out of it. I prefer to use the analysis mode of the chess engine, too >bad that Chessmaster still doesn't have this feature, and go move by move and >selecting different moves from the generated variations. I prefer to flex my >chess muscles rather than read a displayed/printed page of chess annotation by a >chess engine. Hope this helps. >Laurence Well, Laurence, it really hasn't helped all that much. You state above the preference for using a chess engine for analysis. That is exactly what I have stated! The question I put forth was for people to submit their preference (chess engine) for analyzing their games. I wanted to hear preferences and the reason for that preference. By the way, I don't see anything wrong with looking at "a printed page of chess annotation" to use for examination. Just my opinion. As for flexing chess muscles, do you want to play a game? High Noon. Tomorrow. FICS. Game in two seconds. No barbells or dumbells allowed. :-)) As for "supieority
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.