Originally posted by greenpawn34After playing Qxb7, Deep Fritz 11 requires 2 seconds to see that Black is clearly winning (-4.97).
the mate would have been way over it's horison.
Sometimes people talk of computers as if we're still stuck in the 1980s. Things have progressed a lot. Yes, computers are still vunerable to the horizon effect, but then who isn't? Even GMs are prone to cutting their calculations too short. Engines are getting better at knowing when to look deeper. They don't just lookahead a given number of moves and then always stop.
a weaker player would trust his box and not 'sense' there was anything on.
Does a weaker player without a box "sense" everything? No. Used appropriately (i.e. while not being lazy), the box may highlight things that would never have been seen.
how can a weaker player improve if he does not understand what these powerful machines are trying to tell him
Sometimes he can't. But have you ever read a chess book that explains *everything*? I mean, every single line? No. When we read annotated games, regardless of how good the author is, there will always be questions that aren't answered directly. Then we have to think for ourselves, trying to figure out why a given move was played. Sometimes we succeed, sometimes we don't. It's a good skill to develop in the absence of having a personal GM. I agree that it's not as ideal as everything being explained, but that's not a luxury we always have.
my main gripe with these things is it makes players lazy
Totally agreed. But blaming the engines is like blaming alcohol for the existence of alcoholics.
The 'Book' would have been entered by a human from human games. Humans sometimes make errors.
These books are often generated by analysing a database of high-level GM games. So human games yes, but human entering the data, no. Plus the books are often analysed for obvious errors.
Hi Varenka.
Here we go again 😉
I think the others look forward to our little tiffs.
Well you come up with good replies to all my statements.
But blaming the engines is like blaming alcohol for the
existence of alcoholics.
Perhaps we should have a grading limit on these things like they have
an age limit on drinking. I suggest an OTB grade of 1800.
But have you ever read a chess book that explains *everything*
I never read or studied a book that I knew was way over my head
at that stage in my development.
Accept there is very little chance of human enetering error in the
computers 'book'. I was referring to something I read about a
computer team who were only happy when the computer had left
it's human book and started thinking for 'itself.'
Notice you never answered me about computers not understanding
(yet) the concept of counter play or good OTB chances.
This one too went unanswered.
I keep hearing how great they are to help a player improve and
yet....none of them appear to be getting any better.
(that one is below the belt but if I can get you thinking maybe, just
maybe, that old fart might just have a point. I'm asking you to turn off
your box, get out your board and study that way. This is not bad advice).
As far as improving goes, I think there are an aweful lot of chess players who do not improve both with the use of a computer program and without. Improving in chess means changing the way you think for the better. That isn't exactly easy for people who don't have a mentor.
Chess books are great if you understand chess well enough to make heads or tails of them. The problem is that if you need the help, chances are the books you are getting are pretty above your head. I think that's why so many people have such collections of chess books just sit there.
If Fritz can show me an option or two that I did not see, then I think that's great. I may not have been smart/original enough to see it myself, but if I'm aware of it, then that's just one more option that I actually have. You can't play a move that you don't see or don't know.
Originally posted by Eladarnah, it's just general laziness getting the best of them. procrastination by reading books or skipping to the 'next great thing' is always much easier than actually training the things mentioned in those books. studying even one single book thoroghly will put you past 99% of others, because none of us manage to grind any of our books to the bitter end. getting more books only gives you more distraction, and more excuses to procrastinate.
I think that's why so many people have such collections of chess books just sit there.
forget books, engines and other distractions. getting better is really extremely simple:
1) tactics every single day. no skipping.
2) play every day. find out where you went wrong, every single game.
3) keep doing that for years.
when you get to 1800 about 2 years later, add endgames into the mix. at 2000 openings.
that's it. really. chess is simple.
everything else will slowly start making sense as you gain experience. it's really that simple. the HARD part is keeping at it.
people can tell you what to do, but they can't give you the willpower to do it.
I was just speaking from experience. I don't follow algebraic notation very well, so trying to read chess books for me is very tedious. I've never taken in information very well by simply reading. I do much better when I watch lectures.
In any case, I've only been playing chess for little over two years now, so I guess I'll just have to wait a couple of more years before I can expect to get the next few hundred points.
I was really bad when I got started. My FICS blitz rating got into the low 600's.
Hi
The smart and original players are gifted players.
Me and you have to work at it.
You can't play a move that you don't see or don't know.
(I do not like the 'don't know' bit. That tells me you may be learning
opening by rote. Best to stop it if you are. You do 'not know. moves
unless you are memorising opening lore. Everyone will tell that's a
messy and very dodgy path - slip of the tongue - yes?)
'Don't see' that's better.
You would be surprised how much good players don't see in their
games. That is why the game is still alive and not been killed off
by a draw.
If you play a game and are not happy with some part of it then
you look at the bit where you think you went astray.
Your loss was due in great part to that Qf3 move.
OK the box showed you the way but if you had given it a look
yourself I bet you would have found it.
Don't inderestimate yourself Elador. You sound as keen as mustard,
Just get this entusiasm pointed in the right direction.
You look for the answers,
You must look for the answers.
And let the box confirm what you have discovered.
You are the one making the decisions over the board, it's your ability
you must learn to trust. It's yourself and your style you must get to know.
Getting spoon fed by a box will slow your development.
Try this wee experiment.
Do this wee study. It's White to play and win.
Now remember you have to find Black's best defensive moves.
USE A BOARD (it won't take long to set up).
Try it in your head, but if it's beyond you at this stage then OK
move the bits about.
Stay with it, Don't give up. It's not easy but it's not hard.
You will know when you have it solved.
You will get this ahhh moment.
THEN confirm it with Fritz.
Then tell me which gave you greatest pleasure.
Finding this by yourself and getting Fritz to say you are right
or the move Fritz showed you in the game you posted.
Remember stay with it. And only ask Fritz when you are 100% sure.
(you will know when you are on the right path - trust me - it's beautiful).
White to play and win.
Please everyone else no hints or solutions.
Originally posted by Eladarsounds exactly like how I was 4 years ago. a hundred thousand tactical problems took me to 1800 RHP in two years (seems to be quite average for tactic heavy training), at which point I switched over to endgame and later openings. it's all still working well, except that I've gotten damn lazy with training these past 2 years, I simply don't put in the hours I used to. (on that note, I'll get back to it right after this message)
I was just speaking from experience. I don't follow algebraic notation very well, so trying to read chess books for me is very tedious. I've never taken in information very well by simply reading. I do much better when I watch lectures.
In any case, I've only been playing chess for little over two years now, so I guess I'll just have to wait a couple of ...[text shortened]... ints.
I was really bad when I got started. My FICS blitz rating got into the low 600's.
I didn't play blitz the first 2 years, but when I began my blitz was 1000ish at fics I think. and it never got any better until I started playing blitz steadily, no matter how well my training worked on slow chess. then in time the blitz got better as well, very slowly, and only when training blitz steadily for weeks or couple of months. (have never been able to stay interested for more than 1-2 months at a time, then 6 months break and bact to it etc. which can be good for improvement) -it's just a completely different game.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Notice you never answered me about computers not understanding (yet) the concept of counter play or good OTB chances.
Ok, I agree that computers are not ideal at suggesting/assessing some of the practicalities associated with human play. For example, they may see a position as an easy win whereas for most humans it could be very difficult to play in practice. Computers are very objective.
I keep hearing how great they are to help a player improve and yet....none of them appear to be getting any better.
None? I'll agree that computers - just like books or some chess coaches - can sometimes be over-hyped. Afterall, none of these things can do the hard work for you. But some people are getting benefit from working with computers.
Originally posted by EladarHi Elador,
How long should I go aroud in circels before I say UNCLE?
If you are talking about the puzzle?
Don't give up. The win is there and if you are using a board and
now moving the bits about on the board it wiill come.
You will also remember this study for the rest fo your life,
If it's this thread?
You are getting some good advice from some good play both
for against Fritz.
it's use and abuse have been highlighted.
I'd say correctly used these things are a definate aid to help you
improve. I have heard so from far too many good players to think
otherwise.
But all warn if you let it take control and do your thinking for you
it's pointless.
If anything you have been shown the best way to get the most
out of these things.
Now get back onto that study. Don't let it beat you.
Once you get it you will wondder what all the fuss was about.
Hi Just saw your edit.
Well Done. I thought you had given up.
So without blowing the whole thing up all over again.
Which gave you the most pleasure and which do you think did you
the most good learning wise?
Solving this study or watching Fritz show you a move?
Note: In solving studies and combination problems the down side is
you are told there is something there and so look for the win.
This won't happen in a game. Nobody is going to tap you on the
shoulder and say "Mate in 3."
So before you attempt to solve the combination,
first you must SEE the combination. (the hard part).
Play as ofen as you can, play over games and do puzzles so you
start to recognise the formations and patterns that breed tactics
& combinations.
The solution. After 3Rdd7 the wins are easy to spot.
I found it very frustrating while I was working on it. The thought that "yes, now I have it", to "no now I see a way out for black" was not a good feeling. Then when I found the solution, the frustration ended and I felt a little disappointed that the checkmate itself was so easy.
The checkmate itself wasn't the key. It was the fact that black could not advance one of his rooks because he king was trapped and the realization of that fact that was the key.
I suppose that is the greater truth in chess. It isn't the final position that we work towrds. It is the position that leads to the final position that matters.
You warned earlier that I should not attempt to memorize lines. I don't. I do know certain lines because they crop up often with my opening. It is nice to know the best moves. In other words, it is nice to know the true threats and the threats that really aren't threats at all.
Eventually I'd like to learn how to set up tactics, but I suppose I need to learn them before I can attempt to set them up.