09 Aug 06
Originally posted by RahimKAh ha ha, that sounds exactly like chessmaster. Nice impression :-)
It gives you dumb comments,
___ hoping against hope.
___ doesn't save the day. Etc... So no it doesn't tell you this is better because of___.
Chessmaster does but it's not as strong 2400 around and after awhile the comments get annoying.
It's basically, 1._ _ 2._ _ leads to a knight trade for a bishop and a pawn. Better is 1.__ __ 2.__ ___ which lead to a rook for a bishop and 4 pawns.
09 Aug 06
Originally posted by chesskid001Ticks me off. The very first time I was thinking wow this is so cool. Then after a while it got annoying. Eventually when I got fritz I stopped using chessmaster to analyse even though chessmaster gives you more comments besides the ___leads to this and that trade.
Ah ha ha, that sounds exactly like chessmaster. Nice impression :-)
09 Aug 06
Originally posted by RahimKHow valuable do you think Fritz is in helping analyze your games unless there is a tactical error? I mean if Fritz gives me an advantage of .35 and the move I chose gives me an advantage of .25, is Fritz' move really better? If I had chosen Fritz' move am I really going to use the .10 advantage to squeeze out the win? How can I even verbalize what a .10 Pawn advantage means in a given position?
It gives you dumb comments,
___ hoping against hope.
___ doesn't save the day. Etc... So no it doesn't tell you this is better because of___.
Chessmaster does but it's not as strong 2400 around and after awhile the comments get annoying.
It's basically, 1._ _ 2._ _ leads to a knight trade for a bishop and a pawn. Better is 1.__ __ 2.__ ___ which lead to a rook for a bishop and 4 pawns.
I recently played the Black side of the QGD Exch. Var. and was facing a minority attack. Later when I fed the game into Fritz, it suggested moves that looked ambiguous to me. I knew one of the ways to meet the MA is to play ...Ne5 to alter the P-structure which is what I did, but Fritz never considered it. I don't think it even considered the MA for White when it did its annotations. I didn't get much out of Fritz' comments for that game. I did better doing my own notes and letting Fritz check for seriously bad moves.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
09 Aug 06
Originally posted by masscatFor tactical possiblities engines are great. For positional moves double check anything they suggest 😛
How valuable do you think Fritz is in helping analyze your games unless there is a tactical error? I mean if Fritz gives me an advantage of .35 and the move I chose gives me an advantage of .25, is Fritz' move really better? If I had chosen Fritz' move am I really going to use the .10 advantage to squeeze out the win? How can I even verbalize what a .10 P ...[text shortened]... hat game. I did better doing my own notes and letting Fritz check for seriously bad moves.
Dont expect true sacrifices from them either.
09 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by masscatchange the threshold.
How valuable do you think Fritz is in helping analyze your games unless there is a tactical error? I mean if Fritz gives me an advantage of .35 and the move I chose gives me an advantage of .25, is Fritz' move really better? If I had chosen Fritz' move am I really going to use the .10 advantage to squeeze out the win? How can I even verbalize what a .10 P hat game. I did better doing my own notes and letting Fritz check for seriously bad moves.
Personally, I use .75 --- meaning, if Fritz can't find a line .75 better than what I played it won't write it down.
so....if you think .10 imporvement is too "trivial", up the thresehold...
.33 will give you lines which are a "tempo" better
10 Aug 06
Originally posted by ShinidokiThat is true but when you go over and over again it makes sense most of the time. If not there is always forums or your local chess club.
this is why you need people to go over your games ----
plenty of times fritz has suggested X line of play - and I'm left baffled as to why it was an improvement.
10 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by SupermanI was refering to the Josh ones in CM10000 but I know CM8000 also had them. CM10000 also has Larry C and Chessmaster? Lectures but I really like the Josh ones. I still learn from them and I must have seen each one at least 8 times now.
Rahimk, which videos do you mean on Chessmaster?
10 Aug 06
Originally posted by masscatYou have to use your own judgement with computer analysis. Some positional concepts they don't understand as well.
How valuable do you think Fritz is in helping analyze your games unless there is a tactical error? I mean if Fritz gives me an advantage of .35 and the move I chose gives me an advantage of .25, is Fritz' move really better? If I had chosen Fritz' move am I really going to use the .10 advantage to squeeze out the win? How can I even verbalize what a .10 P ...[text shortened]... hat game. I did better doing my own notes and letting Fritz check for seriously bad moves.
If there's something I don't understand which fritz shows, I ask someone or I play out some variations and understand what fritz is talking about.
10 Aug 06
Originally posted by ShinidokiRight I set mine to .35 because that's the best option for me.
change the threshold.
Personally, I use .75 --- meaning, if Fritz can't find a line .75 better than what I played it won't write it down.
so....if you think .10 imporvement is too "trivial", up the thresehold...
.33 will give you lines which are a "tempo" better
.10 I don't care about those moves. When you are master you can worry about your move being .10 bad.
The moves I worry about are positional and tactical moves which I missed. Also when the evaluation changes signs like favouring white to favouring black I figure out why. So it could be like +0.10 and then after whites move go to -0.08 and that's not a good thing for me. It's not a big change but to me it's significant unless if it's a position I know is a draw or one of those positions which computers aren't good at.
10 Aug 06
Originally posted by RahimKI'm not concerned too much about tactical blunders. In 40 games here, I dropped a Pawn in one and lost the exchange in one. The other three I lost I was just plain outplayed.
Right I set mine to .35 because that's the best option for me.
.10 I don't care about those moves. When you are master you can worry about your move being .10 bad.
The moves I worry about are positional and tactical moves which I missed. Also when the evaluation changes signs like favouring white to favouring black I figure out why. So it could be like ...[text shortened]... t's a position I know is a draw or one of those positions which computers aren't good at.
I have my setting at .25. I'll try some higher settings.
10 Aug 06
When I analyse my games with Rybka, I often use multi-variation mode (usually 3 variations) while doing "infinite analysis". Sometimes the engine's 2nd or 3rd choice won't be significantly weaker that its 1st choice, but will make more sense to me.
Using multi-variations makes the engine search slower, but the deeper the engine goes, the less chance of understanding its logic so its not a big issue.
I've also tried an over-night "blunder" or "full analysis", but while this means I can just leave it to do it, I usually find I have to try out alternative variations, etc anyway. So now I just analyse in real time.
In the Fritz style GUI, using the "show threat" function is handy too.
10 Aug 06
Originally posted by VarenkaI use Full analysis 0.35 and 10 sec per move for OTB.
When I analyse my games with Rybka, I often use multi-variation mode (usually 3 variations) while doing "infinite analysis". Sometimes the engine's 2nd or 3rd choice won't be significantly weaker that its 1st choice, but will make more sense to me.
Using multi-variations makes the engine search slower, but the deeper the engine goes, the less chance of u ...[text shortened]... real time.
In the Fritz style GUI, using the "show threat" function is handy too.
On Rhp games I go with 5 second for the first 30 games I player or so but with my new games where i am seriously playing chess I use 10 seconds again.