I have three questions for those of you using computer programs to analyze completed games.
Does reviewing your completed games with analysis help you to improve? I assume that the analysis results would be both tactical and strategic/positional, with tactical suggestions being the easiest to understand. Are the strategic/positional suggestions intelligible, or does the engine calculate so far in advance that its discoveries are often hard to understand?
Third, roughly at what level of ability does a player begin to benefit from the review of such analysis? I understand this is nearly impossible to answer, every player being different, but even a general response would be helpful. I ask because it is possible that I might gain far more from devoting study time to other things - like endgames and tactics, which I am working on now.
All responses are appreciated. Thanks.
The machine will be fantastic in pointing out your tactical blunders and missed shots. That is where I would see the main point in computer analysis.
Positionally speaking I would say no. Not to say that computers play positionally poorly. I would say it is probably their biggest weakness though. But, you can see what the computer would do in response to a different positional plan and if it is(again, tactically flawed etc).
When would you benefit from this analysis? I would say once you can understand basic tactics and strategy. Although I think the benefit gets greater the higher your level of play is.
Originally posted by GoshenI have an inferior program, but I'll take a guess in case you want to fiddle about with it.
I have fritz 5.32. does anyone know how I can load games on to it for it to analyze. I mean games I didn't actually play on it. e.g finished games from RHP or my OTB games?
Thanks
You can download the PGN/FEN under your "My Games" tab, or you can re-create the game in a program like ChessCat (http://www.chesscat.loncarek.de/index.html) and then save it as a PGN. Once you have it as a PGN, I think you probably do something like 'File' then look for 'Load Game' or something similar and locate it. That should get it into the system?
Now back to the topic! 😉
I use Rybka 3 to analyze my games, I find it usefull for finding tactical tricks I missed (you can build an chess problem library of your own games, which is usefull because these problems arise from openings you play yourself).
But it's greatest advantage lies in the building of attacks, I sometimes have the problem (I'm getting better at it though) that I have a promising attacking position that I manage to spoil by wasting tempi, a machine will find the best moves for building the attack.
I do strongly advocate the usage of engines AFTER thoroughly analyzing your games by hand using just the board, pieces and your brain. Than you can put it into the machine and see what you missed tactically.
Ideally you go through the finished game without using the computor, treating each move as a
tactics puzzle looking for improvements for both sides and making notes. You might spend a
half hour or more on some of the positions.
You then play through the game on Fritz, either entering the game manually by playing the
moves with the engine of or copy and paste the pgn into the game window (I think this works
- but it's a while since I've been on Fritz).
Then you play through the game again but this time you have the feature "Infinite Analysis"
feature running in the background. This will give you some new insights into the positions
you've been studying.
The key here is to get the computers solution only after you've looked - as deeply as the time
you have available allows - into the position.
Simply having the game analyzed by the computer and noting how you missed a tactic here
and a tactic there only gives a fleeting moment of insight and teaches very little.
It's like the difference between reading a gossip magazine and a novel,
or the difference between a Big Mac and a Michelin starred restaurant,
or a one night stand and a love affair.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Some people analyse a game, without Fritz, for hours and don't find any improvements. Maybe they played perfectly afterall. Or maybe not. Fritz gives an indication of which case it is. I think this in itself is useful feedback.
You play a game of chess.
You put the game into fritz - it shows you a tactic you missed.
What have you learned?
Also, maybe we learn a new pattern. Or maybe we realise that we knew the patterns but our calculation let us down. So we have a better idea of where to put some training effort... patterns or calculation, etc.
Edit: I agree that people should analyse games themselves thoroughly before using Fritz
I keep getting told how great it is to see a computer showing
you tactical tricks you missed.
And I keep asking for asking for examples.
Nothing.
What I'm saying is it may show you a trick but cannot tell you
why you missed it or suggest an improvement plan.
So after the box shows you a missed trick - what have you learned?
Originally posted by TigerhouseI'd restrict the use strictly for tactics. ignore any positional suggestions, sometimes it'll be correct and sometimes it won't, but you won't be able to tell the difference until you don't need the engine to tell you. so you need to analyze by yourself, and the only way to do that is to analyze by yourself.
I have three questions for those of you using computer programs to analyze completed games.
Does reviewing your completed games with analysis help you to improve? I assume that the analysis results would be both tactical and strategic/positional, with tactical suggestions being the easiest to understand. Are the strategic/positional suggestions intell ...[text shortened]... like endgames and tactics, which I am working on now.
All responses are appreciated. Thanks.
one of the more beneficial things I've learned from engines, is that there almost always is a solution. you just need to keep working on the position until you find it, don't give up. it's there, and you'll be hitting yourself silly in the post mortem if you don't figure it out.
btw, anybody know a good lightweight pgn viewer for 64-bit vista? winboard apparently has 16-bit code in the installer and won't install. I'm using arena for a viewer now, but it's really too bloated for my liking. same problem with fritz.
Originally posted by greenpawn34You've learned that you should kick yourself for losing a game you should've won 😀
I keep getting told how great it is to see a computer showing
you tactical tricks you missed.
And I keep asking for asking for examples.
Nothing.
What I'm saying is it may show you a trick but cannot tell you
why you missed it or suggest an improvement plan.
So after the box shows you a missed trick - what have you learned?
If the tactics are typical for the middlegames you reach from your openings and you recognise this fact then I'd guess it's helpful.If they are random it's only a 'oh wow,I totally missed that' kind of thing.
Soon I'll get you some examples of the box showing me some missed tactics,no time now.And no,I didn't learn anything from them.
Originally posted by greenpawn34well, when you see a similar structure next time, you'll know what to look for. just like with with tactics books.
I keep getting told how great it is to see a computer showing
you tactical tricks you missed.
And I keep asking for asking for examples.
Nothing.
What I'm saying is it may show you a trick but cannot tell you
why you missed it or suggest an improvement plan.
So after the box shows you a missed trick - what have you learned?