Who has Fritz chess program

Originally posted by philidor position
I really don't understand the idea of improving by relying on your analysis. OK, analyzing your games without engines first is fine by all means, but unless you go through the game including your post mortem analysis with a good engine to see how awful, how useless, how pathetic both tactically AND strategically your analysis actually is, I think m ...[text shortened]... engine checking all my variations, my tactical studies wouldn't be nearly as beneficial too.

one of the most illuminating learning experiences I've ever had, was when our teacher handed us the exams of another class, and we had to check and grade them.

Originally posted by heinzkat
I have never won a game because of my Fritz at home.

I doubt the top players on this site, and others like it, cannot say the same.


Jokes concerning rampant cheating aside, the quality of home analysis without a computer varies considerably. Many players are so weak tactically that no amount of unassisted analysis will serve to show where they went wrong.

In an ideal world, we all can take our latest gem to the local chess club where the local GM can show us that it's a fraud. This GM will be a master tactician and will be able to explain in clear language the positional concepts that we need to comprehend the tactical variations.

In the world as it is, not everyone has the capabilities and opportunities to learn from carbon life forms, and our silicon friends open doors that otherwise remain closed. At my local chess club during any given week, the two strongest players are an expert and a USCF A class player that only reached this height a few months ago. We both use engines for home analysis, but not exclusively.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I doubt the top players on this site, and others like it, cannot say the same.


Jokes concerning rampant cheating aside, the quality of home analysis without a computer varies considerably. Many players are so weak tactically that no amount of unassisted analysis will serve to show where they went wrong.

In an ideal world, we all can take our latest g ached this height a few months ago. We both use engines for home analysis, but not exclusively.

I know you take your chess seriously, and are an old bone with loads of chess mileage in both fast and slow chess. neither of us are spring chickens, and both of us are bright enough. I don't reall know about you, but I've never took a single lesson from anyone myself. probably never will. you analyze your games with engine(s), I don't.

you: 1803
me: 2056

the one big difference I can see between us is the engine part. anything else I can think of, opening, middlegame, endgame, -you almost certainly know better. you're more experienced and have a better theoretical base, yet I seem to perform better. if you were anyone else, I'd just assume you were lazing off. but it is you, so I doubt that's the case. my hypothesis obviously is that it's due to the difference in our analysis training.

any thoughts?

Originally posted by wormwood
I know you take your chess seriously, and are an old bone with loads of chess mileage in both fast and slow chess. neither of us are spring chickens, and both of us are bright enough. I don't reall know about you, but I've never took a single lesson from anyone myself. probably never will. you analyze your games with engine(s), I don't.

you: 1803
me: 20 s obviously is that it's due to the difference in our analysis training.

any thoughts?

I'm not sure you can compare chess improvement like that.

So how do you analyze your games, you don't even briefly go through an engine? Aren't you dead curious whether that combination or such and such idea really works or not? I really couldn't live like that. Whenever a game of mine is finished, I literally rush through the engine like a junkie. 😀



this is from my last game. I played 1.Rxd7 here (with the idea 1...Nxd7 2.Qxf7+ Kh8 [if 2...Kh7, 3.Nxd7 works] 3.Qxe6 [not 3.Nxd7? R6e7 4.Bxe7 Qxd7!] Nxe5! (not 3...Rxe6? 4.Nf7+) 4.Qxa6 ), believing I calculated everything out, and when the game was finished, I was feeling great about it.

I'm 99% sure I wouldn't spot the defense 2...Qc8! unless someone came and told me black had a defense. At least not in my current level. There would be so many cases like this. Not only tactical situations, but positional ideas too. I would very possibly feel great or horrible about things after my games finish on false grounds without computer guidance.

You should be feeling great because you were the one that made your opponent mess up, not somebody else. Fritz isn't going to pat you on the back.

Originally posted by heinzkat
Fritz isn't going to pat you on the back.

As I mentioned before. You don't believe in the power of affection and caring, it can do miracles. You should watch more movies 🙂

How do you mean caring? You just load it into fritz and Pray it doesn't tear your game apart

Originally posted by heinzkat
How do you mean caring? You just load it into fritz and Pray it doesn't tear your game apart

You shouldn't just load it in and see what it does, it's not just an outcast backyard dog.

You should walk through the game with it, holding its hand, going through ideas and variations, trying to find alternatives, refuting and testing yourself using the infinite analysis mode.

Originally posted by philidor position
I'm not sure you can compare chess improvement like that.

So how do you analyze your games, you don't even briefly go through an engine? Aren't you dead curious whether that combination or such and such idea really works or not? I really couldn't live like that. Whenever a game of mine is finished, I literally rush through the engine like a jun ...[text shortened]... or horrible about things after my games finish on false grounds without computer guidance.

if there's something really messy, and I couldn't find the solution in game after days of working it over and over, I might check that position with an engine later. but there's a quite high threshold before it comes to that.

how do I analyze? I just work the position until I get a satisfactory solution. where did it start to go wrong? what could I have done differently? engines can hardly ever tell anything useful about those kind of questions, no matter how long you let them run. they essentially say "see that piece? don't drop it next time" or "see that obvious move? don't miss it next time." which is as useful as the advice: "hey, don't lose!" -it's just declarative knowledge, the training effect of it is about zero.

Originally posted by philidor position
You shouldn't just load it in and see what it does, it's not just an outcast backyard dog.

You should walk through the game with it, holding its hand, going through ideas and variations, trying to find alternatives, refuting and testing yourself using the infinite analysis mode.

I think you need a girlfriend. or a pet.

Why can't yall find some middleground. Analyse the game alone first, then check your analysis with an engine.

Woodworm, I think your ''better performance'' over wuelskjfsdf comes from your intense tactical training more than anything.

Also, every knows all the gms review their games with engines!

Originally posted by wormwood
I think you need a girlfriend. or a pet.

sshhh you're going to make my fritz go mad again. I used to have those, you don't want to know what happened to them.

Originally posted by Maxacre42
Also, every knows all the gms review their games with engines!

I always wonder which one, and what kind of super computer the super GMs have with them? V. Kramnik was saying in all his interviews after the Corus games he "needs to check with computer of course", but he wouldn't trust mine, that's for sure 😕

Originally posted by heinzkat
I always wonder which one, and what kind of super computer the super GMs have with them? V. Kramnik was saying in all his interviews after the Corus games he "needs to check with computer of course", but he wouldn't trust mine, that's for sure 😕

most probably they use rybka 3 together with another chessbase product (perhaps a hiarcs, shredder or fritz) for some endgames. the top guys might also use Naum and Zappa, if they are into CC stuff. I suppose they carry 4 CPU laptops (maybe several?) to tournaments and use octals for home preparation.

Originally posted by heinzkat
I always wonder which one, and what kind of super computer the super GMs have with them? V. Kramnik was saying in all his interviews after the Corus games he "needs to check with computer of course", but he wouldn't trust mine, that's for sure 😕

I'm pretty sure Kasparov uses the latest Fritz.