Do I really need Naum 4?

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Dann Corbit, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 35665
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Do I really need Naum 4?

Post by Graham Banks » Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:27 pm

tomgdrums wrote:
M ANSARI wrote:It plays a little differently and has different material balance evaluation on some critical positions. Most notable difference I noticed is that it evaluates a bishop pair much higher than Rybka 3 and thus gets a lof of nice wins due to that. It is overall quite a bit weaker than R3 though, but it gets some good hits.
Thanks for the help! I may get it after all. I really enjoy checking out the different options the engines can come up with.
Naum 4 has a nice playing style. I think you'll enjoy it.

Cheers,
Graham.
gbanksnz at gmail.com

Kurt Utzinger
Posts: 169
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Do I really need Naum 4?

Post by Kurt Utzinger » Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:32 am

tomgdrums wrote:Does Naum 4 give different analysis then Rybka 3 or Shredder 12? Is it worth getting at this point?

Thanks!
If you are interested in analysing games you should miss almost no engine. There are so many position where

- engine A needs 5 seconds to find a solution
- engine B needs 2 hours to find a solution
- engine C can't find a solution

and all these engines give you (can give you) other ideas.

Kurt

DomLeste
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:53 pm

Re: Do I really need Naum 4?

Post by DomLeste » Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:16 am

give u an example World Champion Vishy Anand i read somewhere that he uses Fritz, Rybka & Hiarcs engines for analysis
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

User avatar
Arturo Ochoa
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Montréal, Canada

Re: Do I really need Naum 4?

Post by Arturo Ochoa » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:00 pm

tomgdrums wrote:
Rolf wrote:I would also want to get information about potential diffs on diff hardwares. Otherwise these "overall" this or that dont make much sense. Apparently Naum isnt interesting, Rybka 3 simply is the best.
Why do you say that Naum isn't interesting?
Simply ignore the posts of that guy.

It is a waste of time and you won't get anything productive.

Every engine is useful. Every top engine is useful as they can offer different points of view during the positions analysis.

/A8A.

PS: Tanné des "trolls"...

tomgdrums
Posts: 736
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:48 am

Re: Do I really need Naum 4?

Post by tomgdrums » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:20 pm

Is there a point where they just overlap each other?

I have tried most of the engines (except Fritz...I have had problems with Chessbase software on my computer).

I always analyze with Shredder 12, Hiarcs 12.1 and Rybka 3. I like to throw a wild card in there as well with either Zappa Mexico II and/or now the New Junior.

Is Naum 4 different enough that it will add to what those engines are coming up with?

Thanks for the help! :)

tomgdrums
Posts: 736
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:48 am

Re: Do I really need Naum 4?

Post by tomgdrums » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:21 pm

Arturo Ochoa wrote:
tomgdrums wrote:
Rolf wrote:I would also want to get information about potential diffs on diff hardwares. Otherwise these "overall" this or that dont make much sense. Apparently Naum isnt interesting, Rybka 3 simply is the best.
Why do you say that Naum isn't interesting?
Simply ignore the posts of that guy.

It is a waste of time and you won't get anything productive.

Every engine is useful. Every top engine is useful as they can offer different points of view during the positions analysis.

/A8A.

PS: Tanné des "trolls"...
What does Tanne des trolls mean? I apologize for my ignorance.

User avatar
Arturo Ochoa
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Montréal, Canada

Re: Do I really need Naum 4?

Post by Arturo Ochoa » Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:49 pm

tomgdrums wrote:
Arturo Ochoa wrote:
tomgdrums wrote:
Rolf wrote:I would also want to get information about potential diffs on diff hardwares. Otherwise these "overall" this or that dont make much sense. Apparently Naum isnt interesting, Rybka 3 simply is the best.
Why do you say that Naum isn't interesting?
Simply ignore the posts of that guy.

It is a waste of time and you won't get anything productive.

Every engine is useful. Every top engine is useful as they can offer different points of view during the positions analysis.

/A8A.

PS: Tanné des "trolls"...
What does Tanne des trolls mean? I apologize for my ignorance.
Tanné (Fr. Qc) = Fed up, tired of, bored, sick.

tano-urayoan
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:23 pm
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico

Re: Do I really need Naum 4?

Post by tano-urayoan » Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:53 pm

tomgdrums wrote:Is there a point where they just overlap each other?

I have tried most of the engines (except Fritz...I have had problems with Chessbase software on my computer).

I always analyze with Shredder 12, Hiarcs 12.1 and Rybka 3. I like to throw a wild card in there as well with either Zappa Mexico II and/or now the New Junior.

Is Naum 4 different enough that it will add to what those engines are coming up with?

Thanks for the help! :)
I do not your meaning for that phrase, but my answer will be no. Most engines suggest the same move what is different is the evaluation.

User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

Re: Do I really need Naum 4?

Post by Rolf » Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:05 pm

tomgdrums wrote:
Rolf wrote:I would also want to get information about potential diffs on diff hardwares. Otherwise these "overall" this or that dont make much sense. Apparently Naum isnt interesting, Rybka 3 simply is the best.
Why do you say that Naum isn't interesting?
Asking this in serious is already wrong, because it's clear that it IS interesting, Tom. Isnt it?

I just wanted to simulate the air that is reigning in circles like soccer, where every single fan knows exactly what is the best and true. I was just joking about it. Sorry if I might have touched a sinsitive point in you. Again, your question is so clear that all are interesting that normally nobody would contradict.

But look IMHO some here want to censor opinions like that. They are only happy if all agree with the same opinion. Outsiders are hate objects.

From time to time I'm testing the general climate. And whoopis some appear and tell you, no, dont, this is the troll, the dark man. ooooutch.

This is how they understand Free Speech and democracy.

Anyway, welcome, Rolf
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz

User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

Re: Do I really need Naum 4?

Post by Rolf » Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:07 pm

tomgdrums wrote:
Rolf wrote:I would also want to get information about potential diffs on diff hardwares. Otherwise these "overall" this or that dont make much sense. Apparently Naum isnt interesting, Rybka 3 simply is the best.
Why do you say that Naum isn't interesting?
Asking this in serious is already wrong, because it's clear that it IS interesting, Tom. Isnt it?

I just wanted to simulate the air that is reigning in circles like soccer, where every single fan knows exactly what is the best and true. I was just joking about it. Sorry if I might have touched a sinsitive point in you. Again, your question is so clear that all are interesting that normally nobody would contradict.

But look IMHO some here want to censor opinions like that. They are only happy if all agree with the same opinion. Outsiders are hate objects.

From time to time I'm testing the general climate. And whoopis some appear and tell you, no, dont, this is the troll, the dark man. ooooutch.

This is how they understand Free Speech and democracy.

Anyway, welcome, Rolf
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz

Post Reply