It is time to revolutionize chess GUIs

[Ponti]

Think of it... top GMs can't win a match against top chess engines, period.
For us mere mortals, amateur players, there is no chance, engines are merciless tactical monsters.

Why not focus development on better chess GUIs ? New ways of imputing moves, better 3D boards, better spoken analysis, better and faster search functions, better tools for opening analysis, better and more detailed statistics of your own games?

For OTB players, it doesn`t really matter if we're losing to a 3200 ou a 3250-rated engine.

Engine development should concentrate in strategical concepts or different styles of play.

It was a pleasure to play against CS Tal, Tiger, Junior and Rebel because of their aproach to the "styles" concept. Once there was the Power Chess program with a nice female voice to talk with us. I`m really tired of the sarcasm of Fritz, and the ridiculous window that opens when I make a blunder. Why not a GUI that talk gently to the player?

It does not make any sense to facelift a GUI and not add new features.

CA has the same program since version 8.
CB improvement? I see no great difference between CB 8 and CB 11. In fact, CB 8 had a more "intuitive" interface. The pull down menus in new CB interface are really ugly to work, just as bad as the new MS Word.

Today`s processors and graphics capabilities are great. Please improve your GUIs.

[Albert Silver]

Think of it... top GMs can't win a match against top chess engines, period.
For us mere mortals, amateur players, there is no chance, engines are merciless tactical monsters.

Why not focus development on better chess GUIs ? New ways of imputing moves, better 3D boards, better spoken analysis, better and faster search functions, better tools for opening analysis, better and more detailed statistics of your own games?

For OTB players, it doesn`t really matter if we're losing to a 3200 ou a 3250-rated engine.

Engine development should concentrate in strategical concepts or different styles of play.

It was a pleasure to play against CS Tal, Tiger, Junior and Rebel because of their aproach to the "styles" concept. Once there was the Power Chess program with a nice female voice to talk with us. I`m really tired of the sarcasm of Fritz, and the ridiculous window that opens when I make a blunder. Why not a GUI that talk gently to the player?

It does not make any sense to facelift a GUI and not add new features.

CA has the same program since version 8.
CB improvement? I see no great difference between CB 8 and CB 11. In fact, CB 8 had a more "intuitive" interface. The pull down menus in new CB interface are really ugly to work, just as bad as the new MS Word.

Today`s processors and graphics capabilities are great. Please improve your GUIs.

You argue both the Fritz GUI and CB as if they were the same, but they are not. It is strange that you argue that CB 8 is the same as CB11 and also state you have a strong desire for "better and faster search functions, better tools for opening analysis". In fact this is precisely where the largest differences were made in CB. (I cannot comment on Fritz GUI as I know it but not enough to argue the evolution). Several powerful functions on opening preparation were introduced for the amateur to help them get more meaningful reports and results. There is also the much requested ebook publication tools which have been refined as well, and really are second to none at the moment. The small improvements over the years have certainly made it a finer tool, though whether more could not be done is another discussion.

As to adding more and more features: I don't know about that. It is a dangerous direction, and the Aquarium and CA interfaces are living proof of this. Every iteration has added tons of new features, and now the program is drowning in so many options and features that it is hard to achieve what you want and not get lost.

The design philosophies are completely different of course, and no one will ever be able to satisfy everyone. Even with Chessbase, most users have trouble even with basic features and functions, and despite being far easier to use than CA/Aquarium. I'm not talking about just occasional amateurs, but many top GMs. The point is that most of these features are barely used and not understood. In terms of pure functionality, Aquarium probably has much more to offer the purely analytical player, but not many people are willing to put in the sheer amount of time to study, learn, and master all the tools needed to achieve this edge.

Still, there are plenty of small perks that I consider improvements. In CB11, my personal two favorites are the small preview chessboard in the main window (very practical), and the ribbon menu with the copy-paste game/position now openly available. (I have the Ctrl-K, start engine shortcut memorized).

BTW, Aquarium has been using the ribbon menu system for far longer yet I have not heard anyone complaining about it specifically, which I find interesting.

[Albert Silver]

Think of it... top GMs can't win a match against top chess engines, period.
For us mere mortals, amateur players, there is no chance, engines are merciless tactical monsters.

For OTB players, it doesn`t really matter if we're losing to a 3200 ou a 3250-rated engine.

While true, this represents a typical mistake I perceive in popular perception: that playing an engine must mean getting wiped out by Rybka, Houdini, or you name it.

There are TONS of much weaker engines out there that can give you a fun game and far more competitive (you can win). The CCRL and CEGT rating lists are great for this: check them out.

[frcha]

Think of it... top GMs can't win a match against top chess engines, period.
For us mere mortals, amateur players, there is no chance, engines are merciless tactical monsters.

For OTB players, it doesn`t really matter if we're losing to a 3200 ou a 3250-rated engine.

While true, this represents a typical mistake I perceive in popular perception: that playing an engine must mean getting wiped out by Rybka, Houdini, or you name it.

There are TONS of much weaker engines out there that can give you a fun game and far more competitive (you can win). The CCRL and CEGT rating lists are great for this: check them out.

If you are < 1900 ELO -- DONT STUDY OPENINGS AT ALL!!!!! Just understand basic opening principles choose an opening you like and ONLY study your own blunders ....
Chessbase is way too openings-centric for my liking

Its really pathetic watching 1600 ELO players study the latest "fashionable" lines -- oh yeah what a useless feature for most chess player yet chessbase touts this as the latest invention since sliced bread!

So 1400 ELO player spends ~200 bucks on Chessbase 11 -- studies latest innovation of Ruy Lopez and Sicilian -- plays another 1450 ELO online player and loses after dropping a knight on move 40 after rehashing 20 moves of sicilian theory ...that is if he is lucky...Normally he face some "bad for white" line that he loses very quickly to.
Even worse he faces a moron like me who played a far inferior move that takes him to a slightly superior position that he cannot capitalize on and then he drops his QUEEN!

really -- all you need to do is increase your pattern recognition skills. And any software that can collect your own personal games and analyze them with engines will do. SCID if you will Chessbase light -- why cant chessbase offer a stripped down version of its product for cheaper price ?


like ~$20 -- Becuuse that is what its superior interface to SCID is worth if even that. Most of the other functions are useless for Class A and below players.


I agree that more interactive tutorials, more human like engines are lacking in current software.

I know many would flame me for this one: but there was a book called "Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess" (not really written by BF) a good teaching book for mostly starting out players - very interactive..I wish that teaching method was extended for more chess tactics ... very good in improving pattern recognition skills.

[Albert Silver]

Think of it... top GMs can't win a match against top chess engines, period.
For us mere mortals, amateur players, there is no chance, engines are merciless tactical monsters.

For OTB players, it doesn`t really matter if we're losing to a 3200 ou a 3250-rated engine.

While true, this represents a typical mistake I perceive in popular perception: that playing an engine must mean getting wiped out by Rybka, Houdini, or you name it.

There are TONS of much weaker engines out there that can give you a fun game and far more competitive (you can win). The CCRL and CEGT rating lists are great for this: check them out.

If you are < 1900 ELO -- DONT STUDY OPENINGS AT ALL!!!!! Just understand basic opening principles choose an opening you like and ONLY study your own blunders ....

?? I don't agree with this advice at all. You really think the key to chess progress is to not study openings and only study blunders?

Chessbase is way too openings-centric for my liking

What exactly were you expecting from a chess database program? Its primary benefit is organizing and finding games, and sorting through the vast data whose primary interest is most often to produce helpful openings information.

Its really pathetic watching 1600 ELO players study the latest "fashionable" lines -- oh yeah what a useless feature for most chess player yet chessbase touts this as the latest invention since sliced bread!

So 1400 ELO player spends ~200 bucks on Chessbase 11 -- studies latest innovation of Ruy Lopez and Sicilian -- plays another 1450 ELO online player and loses after dropping a knight on move 40 after rehashing 20 moves of sicilian theory ...that is if he is lucky...Normally he face some "bad for white" line that he loses very quickly to.
Even worse he faces a moron like me who played a far inferior move that takes him to a slightly superior position that he cannot capitalize on and then he drops his QUEEN!

And that's the fault of Chessbase?

really -- all you need to do is increase your pattern recognition skills.

You are misinformed. Pattern recognition is only one part of the equation.

I agree that more interactive tutorials, more human like engines are lacking in current software.

That is because it was never their purpose. Might as well complain MS Word doesn't teach you how to write better. There are plenty of instructive programs to help you develop your game. For tactics, I still think the best by far is CT-Art, though they have weaker programs if you find the recommended 1600 Elo minimum a bit high.

I know many would flame me for this one: but there was a book called "Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess" (not really written by BF) a good teaching book for mostly starting out players - very interactive..I wish that teaching method was extended for more chess tactics ... very good in improving pattern recognition skills.

I'm guessing you are completely unfamiliar with ChessOk's line of instructive programs.

[hgm]

Today`s processors and graphics capabilities are great. Please improve your GUIs.

Well, we are doing that all the time, of course. I have added dozens of new features toWinBoard. But developing a GUI is between 10 and 100 times more work than writing an engine, so not many people have the stamina for it.

[frcha]

?? I don't agree with this advice at all. You really think the key to chess progress is to not study openings and only study blunders?

yes, tactics not openings....at most opening PRINCIPLES.

You are misinformed. Pattern recognition is only one part of the equation.

What are the other parts of the equation....Dont make me laugh by saying opening study ...

And that's the fault of Chessbase?

No. But I am pointing out that the feature they advertise is USELESS to most ..


To chessbase's credit I think they do have some advanced search criteria for many tactical motifs which is probably superior to SCID -- not seen much discussion on that feature though. ..

[Albert Silver]

?? I don't agree with this advice at all. You really think the key to chess progress is to not study openings and only study blunders?

yes, tactics not openings....at most opening PRINCIPLES.

You are misinformed. Pattern recognition is only one part of the equation.

What are the other parts of the equation....Dont make me laugh by saying opening study ...

So you believe that the only thing Anand has over you is vastly superior pattern recognition?

And that's the fault of Chessbase?

No. But I am pointing out that the feature they advertise is USELESS to most ..

IYHO

[frcha]

?? I don't agree with this advice at all. You really think the key to chess progress is to not study openings and only study blunders?

yes, tactics not openings....at most opening PRINCIPLES.

You are misinformed. Pattern recognition is only one part of the equation.

What are the other parts of the equation....Dont make me laugh by saying opening study ...

So you believe that the only thing Anand has over you is vastly superior pattern recognition?

And that's the fault of Chessbase?

No. But I am pointing out that the feature they advertise is USELESS to most ..

IYHO

Most good beginner books cover all the strategical considerations necessary to play good chess -- Understanding chess principles is something even a 1250 ELO player can do ..
So the answer for your somewhat snide question -- yes -- but I must point out that good pattern recognition -- is also directly related to High IQ -- though I suspect you would disagree with me on that too . Of course chess ELO is only directly related to IQ IF the amount of chess interest and study is the same...Many high IQ persons have absolutely no interest in chess or spend very little time with chess.
Of course you don't have to be a genius to be a GM but you certainly cannot be a dunce and be a GM... .


A GM can very easily explain his thought process to a 1300 ELO player who will fully understand it but can never RECOGNIZE or put together a combination of moves from simple rearrangement of known patterns.



The day computers can visualize chess we do -- will be under humble step for humanity wandering whether intelligence is merely some sort of visualization process. ....

[Albert Silver]

?? I don't agree with this advice at all. You really think the key to chess progress is to not study openings and only study blunders?

yes, tactics not openings....at most opening PRINCIPLES.

You are misinformed. Pattern recognition is only one part of the equation.

What are the other parts of the equation....Dont make me laugh by saying opening study ...

So you believe that the only thing Anand has over you is vastly superior pattern recognition?

And that's the fault of Chessbase?

No. But I am pointing out that the feature they advertise is USELESS to most ..

IYHO

Most good beginner books cover all the strategical considerations necessary to play good chess -- Understanding chess principles is something even a 1250 ELO player can do .. So the answer for your somewhat snide question -- yes.

I have no idea what your standard in chess is, but as you reach a new level (which is roughly every 150-200 Elo), you will most likely discover that much of what you thought you understood, you don't, and that there are now things you barely conceived of that you now need to strive to learn and understand.

I know that I am extremely ignorant about many things in chess, but then again my highest rating while competing was only 2250 FIDE, so no big surprise. I have no doubt that should I retake the competitive gauntlet seriously, and break 2300, I would no doubt find out more things I was ignorant about, but didn't realize. It is all a part of the process.

A GM can very easily explain his thought process to a 1300 ELO player who will fully understand it

You mean think he will.