The Aquarium has been subject to many kinds of critisisms, even on the beta-stage. and I agree; it's different, very different, but A) It's still new, and B) The main idea is to develope a different and stronger tool for chess-analysis and training.
I admit, I enjoy the thought of a common format for books too, and IMHO Convekta is the ones that are by far in the right direction. The implemention of comments for instance, is some many has awaited for years.
I'm used to ctg from CB, and I like it. But clearly it misses alot of important things. For an enginebook, it's enough with the markings, add priority analysis etc., but for the user verbal comments makes more than sense. A good ctg book might be ever so strong and well done, but if you want to study chess you're left with "! ? !! ??", some numbers in collons, gren, red and black types. Clearly insufficient for serious a study.
Now, while you blame the GUI (Aquarium), I can't blame you for it. Just like traditional Chessbase users has trouble with ChessAssistant. Been there
Yesterday I upgraded my deframentaion program, 3 versions old, and I flet like I was going from Chessbase to ChessOk/Convekta; you should have been here, it was like a comedy
Point is: Don't let "new" scare, and if you have complains, address them where the belong, the right forum
The discussion is not on the GUI (which i do not like, but this is not important) but on the value of the new book format that aquarium introduces.
My main points is :
1. I am not interested with this book format as long its specifications and format are proprietary / close / hidden. This implies that nothing can be done with these books outside of aquarium GUI. You cannot produce them or alter them with anything independent. THIS is my main concern. that's the exact same reason for which I do not like ctg books either, and the precise reason for which I answered Dann's post : on this point I do not see any improvement with aquarium books over ctg ones.
2. As a tool for elaborating, tuning, commenting or presenting a book aquarium may surely be interesting. But when it comes to book use by an engine in a real chess game all what is needed is present in the polyglot format (positions, move(s) from these positions, and relative frequency of usage of each candidate-move from each position). All kinds of comments, historical or statistical data are just garbage when it comes to actually using the book in real game play. I keep all these kinds of informations regarding opening theory in different formats (including aquarium) and i do not see the need for mixing these with the book itself.
The Aquarium has been subject to many kinds of critisisms, even on the beta-stage. and I agree; it's different, very different, but A) It's still new, and B) The main idea is to develope a different and stronger tool for chess-analysis and training.
I admit, I enjoy the thought of a common format for books too, and IMHO Convekta is the ones that are by far in the right direction. The implemention of comments for instance, is some many has awaited for years.
I'm used to ctg from CB, and I like it. But clearly it misses alot of important things. For an enginebook, it's enough with the markings, add priority analysis etc., but for the user verbal comments makes more than sense. A good ctg book might be ever so strong and well done, but if you want to study chess you're left with "! ? !! ??", some numbers in collons, gren, red and black types. Clearly insufficient for serious a study.
Now, while you blame the GUI (Aquarium), I can't blame you for it. Just like traditional Chessbase users has trouble with ChessAssistant. Been there
Yesterday I upgraded my deframentaion program, 3 versions old, and I flet like I was going from Chessbase to ChessOk/Convekta; you should have been here, it was like a comedy
Point is: Don't let "new" scare, and if you have complains, address them where the belong, the right forum
The discussion is not on the GUI (which i do not like, but this is not important) but on the value of the new book format that aquarium introduces.
My main points is :
1. I am not interested with this book format as long its specifications and format are proprietary / close / hidden. This implies that nothing can be done with these books outside of aquarium GUI. You cannot produce them or alter them with anything independent. THIS is my main concern. that's the exact same reason for which I do not like ctg books either, and the precise reason for which I answered Dann's post : on this point I do not see any improvement with aquarium books over ctg ones.
2. As a tool for elaborating, tuning, commenting or presenting a book aquarium may surely be interesting. But when it comes to book use by an engine in a real chess game all what is needed is present in the polyglot format (positions, move(s) from these positions, and relative frequency of usage of each candidate-move from each position). All kinds of comments, historical or statistical data are just garbage when it comes to actually using the book in real game play. I keep all these kinds of informations regarding opening theory in different formats (including aquarium) and i do not see the need for mixing these with the book itself.
Marc
Ok, got that. Your point is clear to me, and I agree a common format is best.
I see that, as a human user, chess info shouldn't be interesting whwn reading a book. I like both: Play chess and have engines play, and I even look in the books for the engines wehen allowed, and change stuff when I fell like it.
Who's gonna jugded the amount of info provided? I like the openeness, free format, yes, but as not there, the most comprehensiable wins.
