I received my new Fritz program yesterday and now I'm ready to analyze a game I just lost, but I don't know how to do it. I'm playing around with it and trying to find the info in the letter green book, but I figured I'd ask here too. Anyone know an easy way to get Fritz to analyze my RHP games?
Edit: I put the game in using infiniite analysis mode, but I do have winboard. Is there an easier way if I can cut and paste my games into winboard?
There are several ways to do this. Here’s one:
From your My Games page on RHP, select the Info link next to the game you want to analyze. At the bottom of the window that opens you’ll find a link that says “Get PGN/FEN.” Click it and copy all the info from the next window onto your clipboard.
Now go to Fritz and open a new game. Paste the stuff from your clipboard into the new game. Open the pull-down menu at the top of the page labeled Tools and select Analysis, then Full Analysis. Now go find something else to do while Fritz picks apart your game. It can take a while. When you return, you can toggle through all your moves and Fritz will happily tell you where you went wrong.
Originally posted by Eladarusing the engine to the single thing it's worst suited for, analyzing the early opening. oh dear.
Not yet, but Fritz has already given me a couple of lines. This is a long term project. 😉
how about working on larsen's opening by studying what the man himself has done with it instead? and after that fritzing it, if you must.
Originally posted by Eladarnot to even mention the impractical aspects of it, but considering the not-going-to-happen case of actually pulling it off, following a database of engine games is a 3c offense.
You don't understand, I'm using it to give entire games. I'm going to make huge trees. Huge trees! I'm not just talking 15 moves, I'm going for entire games. The more years I play, the further in "Fritz" my games will become.
Hi Elador
Wormwood is correct you will bury your head so far up
your ass you will never see daylight.
'You won't see the forest for the TREE!'
Beware mate, you could end up one the players who use Fritz badly
and it may take years to undo the damage.
One of the other lads will come on and tell you how to get the
best out of Fritz with a view of improving your play.
If you are playing the 1.b3 and f4 lines then watch your King.
Game 6804762 Black used the f-lie you opened to very good effect.
Wormwood,
I'm not planning on having Fritz play out games, I'm just thinking about having Fritz suggest a line and when I play it, use Fritz to tell me what I should have done after that point. It will build as I play.
As far as having a database of engine games, I fail to see how such a dtatbase is any different than having a database of human games. Why is it wrong when an engine makes the moves as opposed to when humans make the moves?
Greenpawn,
That game is the first one I put into Fritz and it suggested a nice perpetual check line. It broke off at move 12 where I shoudl have played Nxc5. I figure that was the right no matter what.
a chess engine is best used after you have done all the post mortem analysis you can stomach.
An engine like Fritz doesn't have the greatest idea generation- 1) because it's horizon is limited 2) it may actually prune a good idea because at a fixed depth the idea has a negative value. Brute force is a really bad way to find novelties.
The best way to develop a new opening is
1) study model games by masters in your opening
2) make notes of typical middle game positions - i.e. minor piece comparisons, closed/open structure etc.
3) note typical endgame motifs - pawn majorities etc.
once you have done that- then fritz might be of use, but really up to then it's kind of the blind leading the blind.
Hi Elador.
Please show the line Firtiz suggests. Do you mean 12.Nxc6.
Good advice from Nimzo (though I'd say you need not limit yourself
to the study of GM games. A lot of good ideas have been played by
weaker players that GM's adopt and polish up - also GM's tend to
play with a draw their pocket - they don't take OTB risks unless they have too).
Here's the perpetual check line:
1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. e3 d5 4. Bb5 Bd6 5. f4 Qe7 6. Nf3 f6 7. Bxc6+ bxc6 8. fxe5 fxe5 9. Nxe5 Qh4+ 10. g3 Qh6 11. O-O Nf6 12. Nxc6 Bg4 13. Rxf6 Qxf6 14. Qxg4 Qxb2 15. Qe6+ Kf8 16. Qf5+
I know Nmxo's was good advice. But it seems to me that if I'm going to study games, then I need to study annotated games. Just because I see the move that does not mean I undersatnd the move. Without understanding, the move means nothing. If I have no idea how to punish a bad reply, then the bad reply probably won't be so bad.
If I look at Fritz's suggestions and use them in the game, then am I not using the same thing as a GM? Isn't Fritz as good as a GM? As Nimzo pointed out, Fritz has a horizon, so it won't recognize some good moves as good, but surely it's moves aren't too bad.
Oh, here's the other line that Fritz suggested, although I'm not too sure it puts white in that great of a position. Perhaps you could evalute it:
1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. e3 d5 4. Bb5 Bd6 5. f4 Qe7 6. Nf3 f6 7. Bxc6+ bxc6 8. fxe5 fxe5 9. Nxe5 Qh4+ 10. g3 Qh6 11. O-O Nf6 12. Nxc6 Bg4 13. Rxf6 Qxf6 14. Bxf6 Bxd1 15. Bxg7