19 Apr 07
Originally posted by pawntorook4Usually products like Fritz have the ability to set your level so that it blunders or plays at a style closer to you. They also have tutorials, videos, a coach etc so that is more value than a free engine like crafty.
For a beginner, how much do you really need to analyze and annotate you games? Currently I just load up my games to Crafty on FICS afterwards to see where I went wrong.
19 Apr 07
Originally posted by Dies IraeSorry, but I absolutely disagree with that statement. Regardless of a player's rating, he can't possibly see all of the tactics on the board. An engine is absolutely perfect for this purpose, and it will be anything but a crutch. It will be a necessity, unless you will always be able to run your games past a higher rated player or coach.
as a beginner, using an engine probably isn't the best idea, as you are making mistakes that are simple enough to see for yourself. Using an engine will be more sophisticated analysis than you need, and will become more of a crutch than a helpful tool.
If all you need to do is analyze and annotate your games, I think Crafty is fine. Yeah, you could buy a commercial engine/GUI with more features, if you decide that you need these added features.
19 Apr 07
Thanks for the advice so far. I ran a few games, a few of wins and mostly losses, and analysis brought up things I never saw, never even knew I should have been looking for them. I noticed that early on in the game, I was never more than a pawn up or down. I noticed that after the 10 or 11 move, is where I start to fall behind. Most of the wins I got were after blunders on my opponents part, so I need to work on 'forcing moves' where my opponent is left with few or little options. I never had a chance to see this before, so I was wondering, will another engine 'out analyze' what I am using now to the point that it makes a difference in my game.
19 Apr 07
Originally posted by pawntorook4Nope. At our level, just about any engine will do as far as identifying the basic tactics. Just don't expect engines to teach you strategy.
so I was wondering, will another engine 'out analyze' what I am using now to the point that it makes a difference in my game.
19 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by pawntorook4Even a 20-second blunder check set at an appropriate level (say 100 centipawns) will show you instantly the major mistakes you made, and why:
For a beginner, how much do you really need to analyze and annotate you games? Currently I just load up my games to Crafty on FICS afterwards to see where I went wrong.
[Event "Open invite"]
[Site "http://www.chessatwork.com"]
[Date "2007.4.11"]
[Round ""]
[White "pawntorook4"]
[Black "acerpm"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "A40"]
[Annotator ""]
[Source ""]
1.d4 Nc6 2.e3 e5 3.Bd3 Nf6 4.Nf3 {-2.13|d9} ( 4.dxe5 {-0.22|d9 EngineShredder10UCI}
) d6 {+0.02|d9} ( 4...e4 {-2.13|d9 EngineShredder10UCI} ) 5.O-O {-1.78|d9}
( 5.Nc3 {+0.02|d9 EngineShredder10UCI} ) Bg4 {+0.33|d9}
( 5...e4 {-1.78|d9 EngineShredder10UCI} ) 6.Nc3 d5 7.dxe5 Nd7 {+1.57|d9}
( 7...Nxe5 {+0.31|d9 EngineShredder10UCI} ) 8.Qd2 {+0.15|d9}
( 8.Be2 {+1.57|d9 EngineShredder10UCI} ) Ncxe5 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 10.Bb5+
c6 11.Qd4 Qg5 {+1.96|d9} ( 11...Bd6 {+0.09|d9 EngineShredder10UCI} )
12.Qf4 {-0.40|d9} ( 12.f4 {+1.96|d9 EngineShredder10UCI} ) Be7
13.Qxg5 Bxg5 14.Be2 h5 {+2.40|d9} ( 14...Bf6 {-0.44|d9 EngineShredder10UCI}
) 15.e4 {-0.98|d9} ( 15.f3 {+2.40|d9 EngineShredder10UCI} ) Bxc1
16.Raxc1 O-O-O {+0.33|d9} ( 16...Bxe2 {-0.98|d9 EngineShredder10UCI} )
17.h3 {-1.41|d9} ( 17.Bxg4+ {+0.33|d9 EngineShredder10UCI} )
Bxe2 18.Rfe1 Ba6 19.Rcd1 Nc4 20.exd5 cxd5 21.Nxd5 Nxb2 22.Ne7+
Kc7 23.Nd5+ Kc8 24.Rd4 g5 25.Ne7+ Kc7 26.Rb1 Rxd4 27.Rxb2 Rd1+
28.Kh2 Rd2 0-1
19 Apr 07
My experience has been that using an engine to check my games is pretty humbling. I played an otb game not long ago that I won, and I was really proud of that win until I ran it through Fritz. Each of us made two big blunders. During the game, I only saw one of his blunders, and I saw neither of my blunders. At my rating, I think these kind of games aren't unusual at all.
19 Apr 07
1 edit
I've never really used engines to analyze my own games... acouple times I have, but I'm around 1500 and I got there from pure brain power... so an engine isn't neccessary in my oppinion unless you want to reach a higher plateau and aim for a rating of 1800+
I believe its more valuable to know how to analyze your own games using your mind rather than a computer... it is alot harder, but more rewarding.
19 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by BoogemDid you say check mate? I don't even see a check at all ...
[fen]8/8/1k6/4p3/p2q4/K7/3r4/8 w - - 0 63[/fen]
I just got this opponent in checkmate and the result was a draw. I don't understand. I feel robbed. Please could someone explain what happened.
You might have to relearn (some of the) rules of chess.
19 Apr 07
Originally posted by ChessJesterCertainly you can do things the hard way, if that gives you satisfaction. Just realize that the hard way will be less efficient, less accurate, and will take longer. You can get satisfaction of running across the country, but it will be a lot more difficult and time consuming than taking a car or a plane.
I've never really used engines to analyze my own games... acouple times I have, but I'm around 1500 and I got there from pure brain power... so an engine isn't neccessary in my oppinion unless you want to reach a higher plateau and aim for a rating of 1800+
I believe its more valuable to know how to analyze your own games using your mind rather than a computer... it is alot harder, but more rewarding.
I'm just saying that an engine can quickly and accurately point out the tactical mistakes that you tend to make over and over. Knowing those tactical weaknesses, you can then concentrate on improving those areas.
19 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Mad RookNobody runs across the country to get from point A to point B, they do it to prove that they have the endurance, stamina and strength to run across the country... and also, to build endurance, stamina and strength.
Certainly you can do things the hard way, if that gives you satisfaction. Just realize that the hard way will be less efficient, less accurate, and will take longer. You can get satisfaction of running across the country, but it will be a lot more difficult and time consuming than taking a car or a plane.
I'm just saying that an engine can quickly and ac ...[text shortened]... and over. Knowing those tactical weaknesses, you can then concentrate on improving those areas.
Sure, using an engine will allow you to easily see what mistake you made in a certain line, but will it allow you to see those mistakes before they happen in a completley different position when you have no access to a chess engine?
You need to be able to analyze the position at any point, using your head, because you can't use computers during chess games and therefore if you spend the time it takes to analyze your mistakes it will return to you ten fold when you play against someone OTB, in real time, in a position you are unfamiliar with.
I'm not saying that using an engine is a bad idea, but you cannot rely on it for everything... you need to have the power to analyze things yourself and the sooner you can do that, the better.
19 Apr 07
Originally posted by ChessJesterMaybe, but if you don't spot the mistake over the board then if it's subtle you won't spot it in home analysis either. The only thing that an engine does is tell you where to start looking and if there is something to look for. Engines may point out an "improvement" but some of the time it's not an actual improvement as either they are making a strategic mistake, there's a problem with the move horizon, or they are suggesting a line which is correct, but just plain not humanly playable (by which I mean a machine might manage to hold the position but a human will go wrong).
Nobody runs across the country to get from point A to point B, they do it to prove that they have the endurance, stamina and strength to run across the country... and also, to build endurance, stamina and strength.
Sure, using an engine will allow you to easily see what mistake you made in a certain line, but will it allow you to see those mistakes be ...[text shortened]... need to have the power to analyze things yourself and the sooner you can do that, the better.
I think that by rejecting the use of engines for analysis you have the advantage that you actually do think, it's easy to use them as a substitute. But you are also wasting your time looking for problems that aren't there, when if there was a tactic you missed the engine would point it out to you and you can focus on the relevant bits of the game.