EPTThere are some slight bugs that kinda bother me. For one, the computer opponents tend to throw away bishops and knights midgame then play very strong towards the endgame.
But there are so many good instructional tools. Anyone else get it?
Chessmaster 10
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
BigBalls
United States5354 Posts
There are some slight bugs that kinda bother me. For one, the computer opponents tend to throw away bishops and knights midgame then play very strong towards the endgame. But there are so many good instructional tools. Anyone else get it? | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
pokerforums
Canada52 Posts
As for instruction, I haven't played chess for AGES, but the CM videos by Waitskin in the other CM's were really great (although a bit too advanced for most players), so I'm assuming CM10's instructions are at least as good. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
Never Post
United Kingdom503 Posts
| ||
|
yeehaw
San Marino888 Posts
 | ||
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
| ||
|
SurG
Russian Federation798 Posts
For analysis purposes you better buy Fritz (Shredder/Junior). Not only those are the strongest programs, they have a lot of add-ons and chess materials available for them. Educational value - I don't know. I haven't seen latest CM versions. They were always pretty slick, I liked them, but I'm a firm believer that, unless you are already excellent player, getting a good book and wooden board is going to do much more for your game then iterating through some excercises on computer, no matter how clever they are done. Playing long time controls and analyzing those games is also good thing. It takes shitload of time, but that's probably the only thing that really pays off. | ||
|
BishopONe
Spain242 Posts
 ! | ||
|
PlayJunior
Armenia833 Posts
It is really nice entertaining tool. And yes, its weaker personalities throw away material. Also, they don't play endings well. In fact, computer plays the endings very bad compared to other phases of the game. I agree that Junior is much stronger than CM. I have Junior8 and some other engines too, and I just get pissed when I watch Junior playing other engines(say, Fritz8). It makes an attack from nothing, and can overcalculate all other programms. It's incredibly strong. Shredder is known for its solid play and much better endgame knowledge than other programs. It's almost as strong as Junior Fritz just sucks. Waitskin's tutorials are great, especially the ones where he talks more about pown structures and less about psycology Also, watch the "famous" games section. Some games are very very well annotated, especially the games of Seirawan, because he has annotated them, and they are really great. The main problem with playing weak computer opponent is that it is always very imbalanced. A 1800-rated comp opponent knows openings for 1700-2000 level, plays tactics like a 2200 player, closed positions and engames like 1500. Thus, playing a computer opponent , u have to just: 1. Avoid tactics(open positions) 2. Exchange and reduce the material to ending or 1. Play the computer out of the book 2. Close the position 3. Maneuvre, and go to ending. Useless to say that this will never improve your play. Go play online at ICC, playchess.com , ajedrez21.com(free!, excellent site). Do not play blits if u want to improve, play blitz if you want to have some fun Good luck, GrandMasters | ||
|
pokerforums
Canada52 Posts
On January 06 2005 05:00 PlayJunior wrote: I have CM 10 th. It is really nice entertaining tool. And yes, its weaker personalities throw away material. Also, they don't play endings well. In fact, computer plays the endings very bad compared to other phases of the game. I agree that Junior is much stronger than CM. I have Junior8 and some other engines too, and I just get pissed when I watch Junior playing other engines(say, Fritz8). It makes an attack from nothing, and can overcalculate all other programms. It's incredibly strong. Shredder is known for its solid play and much better endgame knowledge than other programs. It's almost as strong as Junior Fritz just sucks. Waitskin's tutorials are great, especially the ones where he talks more about pown structures and less about psycology Also, watch the "famous" games section. Some games are very very well annotated, especially the games of Seirawan, because he has annotated them, and they are really great. The main problem with playing weak computer opponent is that it is always very imbalanced. A 1800-rated comp opponent knows openings for 1700-2000 level, plays tactics like a 2200 player, closed positions and engames like 1500. Thus, playing a computer opponent , u have to just: 1. Avoid tactics(open positions) 2. Exchange and reduce the material to ending or 1. Play the computer out of the book 2. Close the position 3. Maneuvre, and go to ending. Useless to say that this will never improve your play. Go play online at ICC, playchess.com , ajedrez21.com(free!, excellent site). Do not play blits if u want to improve, play blitz if you want to have some fun Good luck, GrandMasters I agree with you except for computers not playing endings well - computers play endings soooo good even at the crappiest levels.. at least from what I encountered... it's also difficult too because they will usually make their ending move instantly (1 second) while you think forever, and half the time I lose on time lol.. (when I played I usually played 15 minutes each) | ||
|
goldrush
Canada709 Posts
I'll agree with those that say to get a good online site and play, play, play! Computers are decent up to a certain point, but as soon as you reach that point (sadly, I'm not there yet)... Computers will help, but not as much as playing against someone your own skill level. Be able to see what to do in positions. And alway remember: Tactics > Strategy. I don't care if your overall strategy is better than mine if I just got your queen for a bishop.  | ||
|
Muhweli
Finland5328 Posts
| ||
|
iD.Surv
Belgium827 Posts
| ||
|
Jim
Sweden1965 Posts
| ||
|
pokerforums
Canada52 Posts
On January 06 2005 07:10 Jim wrote: I once played a computer program on its hardest level but it was a bug in the program so I would always win within 5 moves. If I didnt do that opening I got crushed. lol I played on some computer that did that too.. I think it was my friends gameboy i was playing on while on a trip to idaho for a jazz concert (the new thin gameboy was new then).. so i stopped playing that game because im not going to play other openings just because it couldnt beat me when i did that particular opening P.S.: computer chess programs that do this suck ass. | ||
|
Muhweli
Finland5328 Posts
On January 06 2005 09:06 pokerforums.org wrote: lol I played on some computer that did that too.. I think it was my friends gameboy i was playing on while on a trip to idaho for a jazz concert (the new thin gameboy was new then).. so i stopped playing that game because im not going to play other openings just because it couldnt beat me when i did that particular opening P.S.: computer chess programs that do this suck ass. None of the good ones do this though. | ||
|
Telemako
Spain1636 Posts
As said above, play people to improve your play and fully enjoy the game ^^ | ||
|
SurG
Russian Federation798 Posts
By the way, most of the significant games are easy to find in PGN format. They won't have annotations though (well, most). | ||
|
goldrush
Canada709 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4725 Posts
| ||
|
BigBalls
United States5354 Posts
| ||
|
BigBalls
United States5354 Posts
| ||
|
pokerforums
Canada52 Posts
| ||
|
pheered.user
United States2603 Posts
| ||
|
PlayJunior
Armenia833 Posts
Guys! Computers play endings bad. They play certain endings awfuly. No strategy, no sacrifices for activity, no plan, no micro improvements (don't hurry principle), no two weaknesses, and so much pushing! The computer program problem is that endings need much more planning/knowledge compared with tactics than the midgame. Humans see tendentions in endings, while the computers don't. They just calculate... The endgame tablebases help a computer very much, but, unless it's a technicaly hard ending with a very small number of pieces left(Rook+f and h pawns vs Rook, try to win this against Fritz with 6-men tablebases installed )), humans are superior.Also, it doesn't matter what level you are, play humans, because if you play computers, by the time you will be afraid of all kind of tactics and complications(because the computer will always beat you). This is very bad tendention. | ||
|
pheered.user
United States2603 Posts
| ||
|
pokerforums
Canada52 Posts
| ||
|
pheered.user
United States2603 Posts
| ||
|
soundwave
United States363 Posts
| ||
|
Soun
Poland373 Posts
| ||
|
PlayJunior
Armenia833 Posts
About endgame: Nalimoff tablebases help a lot, but it doesn't change the overall picture. Just watch those damn games Kramnik vs Deep Fritz, games 1, 2, 3... Fritz was running on an 8-way Compaq Server with some Gigabytes of RAM and, but had some very big problems playing the endings. The same thing was in Smirin vs Computers match, where various programs used to push vs Smirin in endings and get weaknesses. It's possible to win an absolutely drawn ending to a computer, a one that you couldn't even dream to win against a descent 2600 GM. You don't need to have a won endgame, just one where there are some hard strategic decisions to be made(exchanges are an example where the comp sucks hard ), there is little tactics and there are not too many or too little pieces left on board. As a proof, just watch those games of Kramnik vs Fritz. | ||
|
Luhh
Sweden2974 Posts
Variation and complexity seem a lot higher in this game since it's a balance between capture/battle/territory etc. | ||
|
BigBalls
United States5354 Posts
| ||
|
PlayJunior
Armenia833 Posts
I suggest beginning from Rook endings. Agree? | ||
|
SurG
Russian Federation798 Posts
On January 07 2005 21:11 PlayJunior wrote: Bigballs, it seems we have to run some tests. We can set up some typical endgame positions that have very precise analysys and evaluation and let the comp play them. I suggest beginning from Rook endings. Agree? Let's not exploit the fact that computers don't understand fortress concept in rook endings =) How about some queen endings, doubt humans can play that with computer. | ||
|
iD.Surv
Belgium827 Posts
| ||
|
USMCgamer
Korea (South)255 Posts
As far as CM 10 goes I noticed the same thing about the computer opponents. They make very good and very bad moves... I prefer human players. Anyone know what the best free chess site is right now? Sometimes I get frustrated trying to find a game that I want on Yahoo... Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot about my biggest gripe. I have a dual monitor setup and it doesn't open properly with dual monitors. Most games do this but since it runs in a window the way it does this irks me. O well | ||
|
Naib
Hungary4843 Posts
I play chess on tournaments for 11 years by now | ||
| ||
