Analysis program woes

Originally posted by Varenka
Why is the average age of GMs getting younger? The computer age has helped players gain knowledge quicker and more easily.

I don't believe ANY child begins serious chess training at the age of 5 or 6 on their own. which is an absolute must for becoming a teenage GM. it's all about the parents at that age, how well they're able to support and motivate the child in his hobby. if there are more teenage GMs, it's because there's more parents who know how to properly support their kids.

the time it takes to achieve expertism at any given discipline hasn't changed as far as I know. the learning isn't happening faster.

Hi V.

I think we should keep the debate about computers and can they teach.
I have not mentioned modern books and DVD's.

The opportunities for young players are greater than ever before.
They have tournaments designed so players can get norms.

Some countries really concentrate on getting their younger players IM & GM norms.
Countries that don't have the funds and leave their younger players to their own
devices hardly produce any.

Also the training methods adopted by many of the leading coaches have
been honed into a fine skill.

I don't know if you have attended any of the lectures given in Scotland
but everyone who has been to one comes away full of praise.
Players agree they are learning more in two hours than they would in
two years of self study.
(ie putting their games into an engine and seeing what comes out).

I think you will agree a human can bring you on in leaps and bounds.

Then there is grading inflation which has also contributed to the
rise in IM's and GM's giving us a term I never heard before computers
were lorded as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

"Weak G.M's" You must have heard this term yourself.

A smashing editorial by GM Malcolm Pein in CHESS a few years back
highlighted with examples the low standard of modern GM play.

So the numbers of IM's and GM's are rising but the standard of play is slipping.
The top elite are brilliant players but there are a mass who share the same title
but are termed 'Weak' by fellow grandmasters.

Luke McShane in the latest CHESS (March 2011) thinks computers
have enriched chess.

He is talking about about opening preparation;

"Actually, what the computer has done is force players to become more
creative in order to try and win games. The computer has put more pressure on
players to come up with some special idea which is not only about calculation."

(He never mentions anywhere they teach people anything.)

They are playing their part in further developing the game I cannot
possibly argue against that. I agree.

But putting your games into a box in the futile hope you might learn something?

Not yet.

When a computer can look at say 20 games and recognise a failing or
a fault in a players make up and then explain it in detail showing examples.

When it can stoop down to that players level and take him up a level
without losing him in a myriad of complications ending in +2.09.

Then we may be getting somewhere.

Currently.

It will always show you what it thinks is the best move, and the reason for
this may be 15 moves away. How is that helping someone who does not
understand the postion.

And it will never ever (not yet anyway) recommend a move that is not best
but has good practical chances. Never.

Thanks for posting the game V. Off to play with it.

Didn't Ruxton use an engine (a 1982 ZX Spectrum was it?) while writing Rampant Chess? 😉

Just curious (don't have the book in front of me), did either of you use a box while writing the book?

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi V.

I think we should keep the debate about computers and can they teach.
I have not mentioned modern books and DVD's.

The opportunities for young players are greater than ever before.
They have tournaments designed so players can get norms.

Some countries really concentrate on getting their younger players IM & GM norms.
Countries that don practical chances. Never.

Thanks for posting the game V. Off to play with it.

I don't know if you have attended any of the lectures given in Scotland
but everyone who has been to one comes away full of praise.
Players agree they are learning more in two hours than they would in
two years of self study.

I attended Dvortesky twice, Yusupov and Marin lectures and they were indeed very instructive. Usually a session amounted to around 15 hours or so, split over several days.

I think you will agree a human can bring you on in leaps and bounds.

During the end of last year I worked for months with an IM from the Ukraine via Skype/ICC. In previous years I've worked with other IMs and a GM. Again, the help was very instructive.

But such advice is not always available. I'll make you a deal, you get me a 24x7 Kasparov help line and I'll switch the computer off. 😉

It will always show you what it thinks is the best move, and the reason for this may be 15 moves away.

*May* be 15 moves away, or 10 or 5 or... If I can play chess to the level that always requires 15 moves to refute my mistakes then I'll be a very strong player indeed!

You focus on the exceptions; the examples where computers are not so useful. It's like me reading a game that Kasparov annotated and not following one of his comments/lines, and then dismissing the whole lot. Instead, I take what does work for me.

So, I analyse somes moves and the computer's line makes no sense, even after investigating it somewhat - ok, I dismiss that. Or I can see why the computer's play wins, but it requires hugely complicated and accurate play - ok, I can't hope to play like that, so I dismiss that too. But then there are examples that I can readily understand and are feasible to adopt - these I learn from.

Hi. Mad Rook

Both Keith and I and a whole host of others I could name drop are
anti computer as a teaching aid.
But a box was used as a tool to check analysis, especially mine,
by Alastair White with Rybka.

(I of course argued with the findings and some of my orginal stuff is in).

One object was to see it as we were seeing it.
The players did not have access to a box so why should we?

Think my longest piece of analysis if one of the Keti games
where I start of with Capa saying 'The Sicilain is full of holes."

So I let Capa take over the middle game and did it his way.
(Rybka did not like it for 30 seconds then suddenly came around to my
way of thinking.)

Of course it did not like everything but I was showing how it could have gone.
A whole new approach to playing v the rigid 'full of holes' e5 Sicilian.

I think the box is a great tool for the writer. Especially databases.

I have Fritz 10 But loathe using it as it spits out loads of crap you don't want
to mention. You can easily write yourself into a hole.

And it really slows up my system.

Hi V.
Kasparov help line is 0845 666 666 class are £10 a minute.

Good to see you are mixing your study but do feel you are way past
getting any help from a box.

Prove me wrong and be Scotland's next IM.

You would have thought with all box use the Scottish players are doing
there would be IM's and GM's everywhere.

When was the last IM. (I know, I wrote a book about them)
They all in the middle age. The Youngest is Eddie Dearing who is now 31.

The three players who have 2 IM norms, Morrion, Berry and Tate are not
youngsters.

I'm looking for a Scottish youngster to break though and say he owes it all to
a box.

I suspect none are going to break though and I'm blaiming the box.

The Edinburgh Congress is coming up soon. I'll see you there.
Take a look at the analysis room in between rounds.

There was a time, in the Rowson era and beofre computers when every
table was filled with players going over their games.

Now the juniors are outside playing football and if you ask
them about a game and perhaps a missed chance.

"I've not looked at it yet, but I will with Fritz next week."

I drag them to a board and force them to go over it. And I do!!

Do me a favour V, if you are playing at Edinburgh then one week before
the event just do tactical puzzles on a full set.
(if you have the Standard Scottish Chess Supplies set then use that).
No box and screen solving. (it ruins your 3D view).

I have some crackers. I'll post them mid-week.

No opening study. Just positions for you to think about and solve.
It won't do you any harm to try it.

Not looked at the box analysis yet - been busy with Pawn Riot's Blog.
(some smashing games in his collection).

The Open Encyclopedia of Chess Openings is a place where you can post computer analysis of opening positions, add commentary, post counter-analysis refuting someone else's analysis, build upon existing analysis that you agree with, etc.

It is a wiki-based, user-generated encyclopedia of chess openings. Each wiki page is a unique opening position. Pages may include computer analysis of the position, history, written explanations of the themes or motifs for the variation, etc.

The site attracts players who are interested in "advanced" chess (centaur chess). Chess players can also share their post-mortem analysis of correspondence or OTC games.

Currently the site reccomends the 1.d4 as the correct first move and 1.. f5 is the correct response...