Originally posted by wormwoodExactly! We are on the same page here, I think. I think my flaw was that I wasn't voicing it so poetically.
if there's something really messy, and I couldn't find the solution in game after days of working it over and over, I might check that position with an engine later. but there's a quite high threshold before it comes to that.
how do I analyze? I just work the position until I get a satisfactory solution. where did it start to go wrong? what could I have ...[text shortened]... t lose!" -it's just declarative knowledge, the training effect of it is about zero.
The human brain cannot think the same way a computer does, so there is very little point to asking a computer how you should have played. It's not like a human player can follow the same path that the computer took to get the answer, and your next game will look different and have different mistakes to make. As the computer is not there with you at the game (better not be, anyway) you are going to have to learn how to reach solutions in a human sort of way.
Originally posted by wormwoodyes, he had like 10 people instead π
and I think there were no relevant programs around when he made himself the chess player he was/is. π
Kasparov's strength that carried him still on the top over to the next generation with Anand, Topalov, Kramnik etc, leaving behind his generation in history books was that he could adjust to the computer age very quickly and well, he was the best in the world to do computer based analysis.
Kasparov is good friends with chessbase owner, Friedel something.
Originally posted by Maxacre42Yes, it was at a time rybka wasn't around. he cites fritz very often in his predecessors and test of time book. today (for Carlsen's preparation, let's say) he uses both probably, but the main one would be rybka, simply because it's so much better.
Really? isn't he sponsored by Fritz? He probably got payed for saying this, but behind Fritz boxes it has a Kasparov quote saying ''I regularly analyse with Fritz''
Originally posted by philidor positionWhat do you mean by so much better? I don't own Rybka 3, I just know it beats other chess engines head to head. I would have thought gms only look for tactics with the computer and creat the plans themselves. Fritz is a very nice looking and user-friendly program, I have no idea about rybka 3, but I had an earlier rybka and it was ... well a a big pile of manure infested by bugs.
Yes, it was at a time rybka wasn't around. he uses both probably, but the main one would be rybka, simply because it's so much better.
Originally posted by Maxacre42it's not only a couple of hundred elo points stronger than fritz in cc games, but analyzing with rybka human (a rybka 3 version) is a completely different experience than analyzing with fritz 11. (I don't have fritz 12).
What do you mean by so much better? I don't own Rybka 3, I just know it beats other chess engines head to head. I would have thought gms only look for tactics with the computer and creat the plans themselves. Fritz is a very nice looking and user-friendly program, I have no idea about rybka 3, but I had an earlier rybka and it was ... well a a big pile of manure infested by bugs.
many people believe engines are useless at positional evaluations and are only good for tactics, but I strongly believe it's not the case with Rybka 3. nowadays stockfish and deep shredder 12 are probably catching up in that area. I don't have much experience analyzing with them though.
Originally posted by wormwoodI make a lot of hasty moves that cause me to lose. Haste is caused by carrying too many games. Right now I have one here, but fourteen and nineteen at two other sites. Last week I had ~45 games in progress--too many. I also play online blitz most days and OTB as often as possible.
I know you take your chess seriously, and are an old bone with loads of chess mileage in both fast and slow chess. neither of us are spring chickens, and both of us are bright enough. I don't reall know about you, but I've never took a single lesson from anyone myself. probably never will. you analyze your games with engine(s), I don't.
you: 1803
me: 20 ...[text shortened]... s obviously is that it's due to the difference in our analysis training.
any thoughts?
I aim to achieve an USCF expert rating. All forms of online chess are secondary to that. At the present my USCF is higher than my RHP rating.
I took lessons from a master several summers ago. MY USCF has improved about 250-300 since then.
Originally posted by philidor positionInteresting! Maybe I'll buy rybka 4 when it comes out.
it's not only a couple of hundred elo points stronger than fritz in cc games, but analyzing with rybka human (a rybka 3 version) is a completely different experience than analyzing with fritz 11. (I don't have fritz 12).
many people believe engines are useless at positional evaluations and are only good for tactics, but I strongly believe it's ...[text shortened]... probably catching up in that area. I don't have much experience analyzing with them though.
Originally posted by philidor positionOff base a bit.
it's not only a couple of hundred elo points stronger than fritz in cc games, but analyzing with rybka human (a rybka 3 version) is a completely different experience than analyzing with fritz 11. (I don't have fritz 12).
many people believe engines are useless at positional evaluations and are only good for tactics, but I strongly believe it's ...[text shortened]... probably catching up in that area. I don't have much experience analyzing with them though.
Rybka and Fritz are not separated by "a couple of hundred elo points". In fact, most
ratings of the two engines in congruent hardware scenario's place the engines <100
points different.
As for what Kaspy uses, I'm sure is dependent on the position. I know from reading
some of his work, that he once preferred Hiarcs to all comers at one time. Today based
on reading from Rybka forums, the Carlsen camp does utilize Rybka.
Rybka is probably the strongest middle game engine in the world. However, its ending
efficiency is quite weak (respectively). Rybka can be outperformed in endgame
scenarios w/o any tablebases rather easily. Stockfish, is one breed which does so
regularly to Rybka.
Shredder doesn't outperform any engine in any singular area, however it is an all
around powerhouse, and does very well in engine matches due to its "panoramic"
search qualities. Or so says the company.
You can be rather certain that positions are evaluated by Kasparov himself, and he
leaves his analysis for engines to any unknown dynamics which are tactically
calculable. I'm also fairly certain he utilizes more than one engine in such positions.
-GIN