Originally posted by VarenkaIt's a wonderful tool but I would like to see evidence that it is helping.
What is your conclusion? People should never use Fritz for analysis?
Has anybody played a game using a tactic in a later game
that was pointed out o them by computer in a previous game.
Has anybody employed an idea in a game they got from a box?
Anybody, somebody.....
I keep asking this and all I get is tumbleweed.
Everyone keeps saying do it - nobody is furnishing examples
of it working.
Until I see evidence that it works then I will challenge this advice.
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
Originally posted by greenpawn34An example from OTB play.
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?
Here I played 1. Rbf1, after some considerable thought. Black's response 1. ... Qc8 was what the
computer tells me was the best response.
However, computer analysis gave 1. Qd7, which I can see is better.
Lesson: When attacking, sometimes the best use of the extra mobility is to switch the attack to
the other side. Or look a little wider when looking for tricks.
Originally posted by greenpawn34At a game I played at the NYS Open in 2008 (me as White), the opening went as follows:
It's a wonderful tool but I would like to see evidence that it is helping.
Has anybody played a game using a tactic in a later game
that was pointed out o them by computer in a previous game.
Has anybody employed an idea in a game they got from a box?
Anybody, somebody.....
I keep asking this and all I get is tumbleweed.
Everyone keeps s ...[text shortened]... amples
of it working.
Until I see evidence that it works then I will challenge this advice.
1 e4 c6 2 d3 d5 3 Nd2 Nf6 4 Ngf3 Bg4 5 Be2 e6 6 Ne5!? Bxe2 7 Qxe2 Bd6
I played 8 Nef3 but the "box" gave the line 8 Nxf7 Kxf7 9 e5 where I regain the piece and Black's king is stuck in the center.
As it's an opening, I've committed the line to memory and will use it next chance I get. 7 Bd6 is an error, but it is a perfectly plausible move.
Originally posted by greenpawn34You use this as a single assessment of whether engine analysis is useful or not. But there are other aspects to consider.
Has anybody employed an idea in a game they got from a box?
e.g. I know that having the bishop pair can be a good thing. But my evaluation of such things is far from perfect. So, I analyse a game and I see that at certain points Rybka is willing to give up the bishop pair whereas I tried to hold onto it. If this happens frequently across many games, I learn that maybe I'm placing too much emphasis on the bishop pair. In future games, I'll be a little more willing to give them up. I can also study Rybka's subsequent play to learn more about cases when the bishop pair is useful or not. This may guide me in my games.
So, yes, there's no new ideas as such being given by Rybka. But tuning and improving known ideas is a huge aspect too.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 07
- Moves
- 28986
Originally posted by VarenkaThis is an interesting point, but for me I think it could be dangerous as the 'box' will know its strengths and limitations far better than I do.
You use this as a single assessment of whether engine analysis is useful or not. But there are other aspects to consider.
e.g. I know that having the bishop pair can be a good thing. But my evaluation of such things is far from perfect. So, I analyse a game and I see that at certain points Rybka is willing to give up the bishop pair whereas I tried to ...[text shortened]... as as such being given by Rybka. But tuning and improving known ideas is a huge aspect too.
Often when analysing my games where I shied away from a line where it looked like my king was close to being mated, the computer was quite happy to play those lines as it knew that although they looked scary, there was in fact no mate and I eventually would have come out better. Personally I just don't have the ability to do this looking 10 moves deep - so like most human players I would play the safer line.
So - I don't feel too bad when Chessmaster tells me I missed a mate in 13, but as someone previously said I do try to learn the kind of positions that should set tactical alarm bells ringing, either in defence or attack.
Originally posted by aquatabbyFair comment. And there's nothing wrong with deciding that the engine's suggestion won't work for you personally. Likewise, I don't study Kasparov's games and then aim to get into the types of positions he excelled in - it's not my strengths.
I think it could be dangerous as the 'box' will know its strengths and limitations far better than I do
But it's still instructive to see other approaches to positions, even if not to our taste. Plus there will be a significant amount of engine analysis that does meet our taste/needs.
I like this one.
Been staring at it for a while.
(looks like it came from a Pirc/Kid Black's missed a chance to play e6).
Even without looking at the game you can see this was a
a critical position.
The chosen move Rb-f1 looks OK and natural and going over it yourself
I can see a player playing Rb-f1 thinking that was OK
and looking for an improvement elsewhere.
I'm honest with myself and am 90% sure I would have played Qd7.OTB.
I want a Rook on h3 and black's freeing move is 1...b5.
Qd7 does the business (bonus holds Knight, pins the e-pawn)
It's the kind of position I enjoy having - Black is tied up.
It's the kind of black position I'd hate and would have tossed
some material to stop it from happening and getting active instead.
The box has helped here - 1.Qd7 must be the move.
V a cramped opponent look at his freeing pawn pushes and try
to prevent them. Stop swaps.
What to do now is play the position after 1.Qd7 v the box.
I'm up for Nc3 sac the a-pawn and Nb5 hits d6 - it's an idea.
Be interesting to see what a box would do here - it's a pretty
wretched position. Your opponents 1...Qc8 was a good move.
How did the game go - post it - what was the computer?
No doubt about it - correctly interpretated the box helped here.
In the No1. game - I have it my head - (if possible use a diagram)
I'm not sure about this one.
Is 6.Ne5 the move (notice No1 has dropped a !? on it).
Also true King cannot castle but think weakness of e6 pawn is the factor.
However cannot see huge plus for White also depends too much on Bd6.
My advice here would be leave out 6.Ne5 (don't go moving bits
again before one castles - it's the Morphy in me)
You have choice 6.0-0 or roll dice and hope for 7...Bd6.
I'm all for dice rolling OTB but prefer to complete development first
easpecially if my opponent has not strayed off the development path.
Surprised No1 missed it OTB - when you have a Knight on e5
always look at Nxf7. And the pattern Bd6/Nf6 are pawn forkable.
Tells me No1's inner self was not too convinced about 6.Ne5
and was already thinking about his position with the Knight back on f3.
This is one reason why tactical shots are missed.
Players thinking too far ahead and not looking at what is in front of them.
I think computers are a serious tool but if you are going to use it
to help you analyse a game then there are still questions to answer
and still a bit of work to do.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Any tool u use you need to answer questions and have quite a bit of work to do yourself. If it doesn't involve work then it doesn't improve your game.
I like this one.
[fen]4rr2/p3p2k/qp1p1ppb/2pP4/N1P1P3/PP3R1Q/6PP/1R4K1 w - -[/fen]
Been staring at it for a while.
(looks like it came from a Pirc/Kid Black's missed a chance to play e6).
Even without looking at the game you can see this was a
a critical position.
The chosen move Rb-f1 looks OK and natural and going over it yourself
I ca ...[text shortened]... se a game then there are still questions to answer
and still a bit of work to do.
Here's how I analyze my games on the computer
First, I try to analyze them shortly after I finish them (at most one or two weeks after) so that I am still able to remember some of the ideas I was considering during the game. Using Fritz on its "Infinite Analysis" mode, I enter in all the variations I looked at, and look at the evaluation. While I agree that computers are best for tactical ideas, I think you can still learn positional ideas from them. In all the games that have major tactical mistakes, I analyze all the variations in the tactic. Then, I create a puzzle out of it, using that exact same position and saying "x to move", and on a separate page put all the answers. This way, I create my own tactics training book from all the tactics I missed. Then, I take out my opening books and see where I deviated in the opening, and I'll put the recommended variation as one of the sidelines. I feel that you can learn positional ideas from computers, because you can see whether your plans were objectively sound, and if they weren't, you can look at the variations the computer gives and sometimes figure out why your plan was bad, or why another plan was better. I also make it a point to annotate all my games, good or bad, as this helps me solidify my ideas and plans, and it forces you to try and justify your moves, which can help you identify faulty thinking processes. I've only been doing this form of computer analysis for a few weeks, but I think it's helped me
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
Originally posted by greenpawn34Thanks for looking through it. I had thought that there was something better, but could not find
- lots of snips for compactness. Hopefully no change of intent.
Even without looking at the game you can see this was a
a critical position.
The chosen move Rb-f1 looks OK and natural and going over it yourself
I can see a player playing Rb-f1 thinking that was OK
and looking for an improvement elsewhere.
I'm honest with myself and am 90% sur ...[text shortened]... analyse a game then there are still questions to answer
and still a bit of work to do.
it at the time. Thus the comment about looking wider.
I wanted to hide the "Qd7" to give people a chance to think what they would have done, but I could not find the function to do it. It is probably something too easy, like hide in square brackets.
I should try plugging the game into the "box", and playing it out - I do not do that very often. OTB, I shuffled Q and R, but it was too slow, and I lost the advantage. Possibly as a result of the frustration of going from winning to mere equality (in my opinion), I then blundered and lost.
In truth, I was not terribly keen to post - it was a team game where we ought to have drawn, and I have beat myself up about it enough. I'll do a decent write up, and then post it - but later this week.
Originally posted by chesskid001Small tip if you're not already doing so... don't just display the engine's top choice, display at least the 3 top lines, maybe more. Often there will be several good moves, all close in their evaluations and it's useful to see this. Alternatively, it's useful to see that a move is forced in the sense that all other moves are much weaker.
Using Fritz on its "Infinite Analysis" mode, I enter in all the variations I looked at, and look at the evaluation
2 edits
Originally posted by greenpawn34you seem to have a dubious understanding of tactical training. you think of tactics as a reference base, like once you see a tactical move or combination, it will help you improve because next time you'll see a similar structure, you will remember it, and even be able to tell about it (which is what you're asking for right now).
It's a wonderful tool but I would like to see evidence that it is helping.
Has anybody played a game using a tactic in a later game
that was pointed out o them by computer in a previous game.
Has anybody employed an idea in a game they got from a box?
Anybody, somebody.....
I keep asking this and all I get is tumbleweed.
Everyone keeps s ...[text shortened]... amples
of it working.
Until I see evidence that it works then I will challenge this advice.
in my experience, it's not the way it works. I never remember any position or any puzzle I have solved before (of course if it's not only days ago). and whenever I solve a new puzzle, it's almost completely new to my conscious. I must have solved like 20K tactical puzzles and I really don't recall saying "oh, I had seen such structure before in such such position or game".
tactical training should be interpreted as a light body training without chemicals. you simply get stronger, you don't "add up".
well, but something should add up, shouldn't it. it does indeed, but what does add up is totally unconscious, and it's definitely not cumulative in a sense like "lessons that I've learned". it's a lot different than that.
if tactical training was the result of individual and separable "learned lessons", thousands would have reached master level in terms of tactical ability in like 1 hour, because there are actually very, very few patterns that you can distinguish.
yet, people make the same blunders again and again all the time. I don't think all of them are idiots. I think learning is something very different than what you understand of it.
Originally posted by TigerhouseThanks! But now at greenpawn if I dont use a box how to find out how i went wrong in a game how will I find out how I went wrong in a game??
I have an inferior program, but I'll take a guess in case you want to fiddle about with it.
Now back to the topic! 😉
Sorry for the tautology
Originally posted by philidor positionI'm sure a lot of chess authors, notably reinfeld, chernev and co. will vehemently disagree with you on that, sir. In fact I was watching a documentary on Susan Polgar and it was confirmed that GM's rely on pattern recognition. And the better you are at that, the better you'll be at chess and you dont spend time going through unneccessary variations.
[b]you seem to have a dubious understanding of tactical training. you think of tactics as a reference base, like once you see a tactical move or
By the way, they did some tests on her brain, MRI.
Originally posted by philidor positionyou forget that pattern recognition is also subconsious, pretty much the way you explain it actually, you don't think hey I've seen this before, you just find the solution much quicker or even instantly. It's tactics training, not study... (study is refered to the conscious mind while training to the subcounsious)
you seem to have a dubious understanding of tactical training. you think of tactics as a reference base, like once you see a tactical move or combination, it will help you improve because next time you'll see a similar structure, you will remember it, and even be able to tell about it (which is what you're asking for right now).
in my experienc ...[text shortened]... I think learning is something very different than what you understand of it.