It is time to revolutionize chess GUIs

[frcha]

The word Understanding of course is what you misunderstand. ...

Understanding how to approach the game ... how to win with better tactics, how to place your pieces on the best squares etc .....

I am defining understanding quite differently ..


Hard work can only take you so far ...


A good indication of chess talent is chess 960. Basically any variant of chess that is very chess-like utilizes similar patterns but dumps the memorization is what I am in favor of ....

One of the most interesting late interviews with Bobby Fischer covered this quite well:

http://chess960frc.blogspot.com/2011/01 ... uffed.html

Also this blog post is relevant to what we are talking about:

http://chess960frc.blogspot.com/2011/02 ... heory.html
IN particular I like this quote not sure about source:

In addition to the desire to copy the superstars, another reason we spend a disproportionate amount of time learning opening theory is that unlike other kinds of chess work, the fruits of the labor are very tangible. If we learn a new opening idea we can usually imagine putting it into practice much more readily than if we learn any other kind of chess idea. However, this is a limitation of our imaginations rather than a true reflection of the kinds of work that will help us improve.

Additionally, I am also interested in some of the more exotic chess variants - most notably some of what H.G.Muller has made engines for.

[fern]

I have been praching that gospel since at least 5 years to date and none give me an atom of atention, even between programers that are already in just the second -top 5 and so have all the reasons to focus his effort where you and me say.

I have been so candid that I even has sent detailed and long list of things to do and even how to do it, all said verbatim of course, i am not programer.

my bes
Fern

[fern]

I concur enterily with your analysis. No matter what Albert can say about studying opennings, even if he is right in a theoretical frame, he is not from a sycho point of view; the 1500 player is not such because he has not studied enough, but he has not studied enough because his personal features make of him a 1500 player with all that fact involves. First, lazyness. Second, lack of motive. Why should us, simple amateurs, expend thousands of hours to learn nothing like this? And, as you say, for what, if generally speaking we do not even master ABC of the game?. I still cannot handle a simple ending , two kings, one pawn, and I cannot care less. I will not now study that. I prefer to take a book of roman histouy or listening Haydn. Andf so and so.
We just like to be entertained and for that better guis are needed.

a pal
Fern

[Tom Barrister]

Think of it... top GMs can't win a match against top chess engines, period.

I disagree. A grandmaster who studied the way the engine worked could win by simply creating a positional strategy that falls outside of the range of brute force analysis of the engine and takes advantage of the positional weaknesses of the engine..

I also believe that a grandmaster could defeat an engine pointblank if the latter didn't have an opening book or endgame tablebase.

Of course, that's just my view, and others may well disagree.

[mhull]

Think of it... top GMs can't win a match against top chess engines, period.

I disagree. A grandmaster who studied the way the engine worked could win by simply creating a positional strategy that falls outside of the range of brute force analysis of the engine and takes advantage of the positional weaknesses of the engine..

I also believe that a grandmaster could defeat an engine pointblank if the latter didn't have an opening book or endgame tablebase.

Of course, that's just my view, and others may well disagree.

I disagree because computers are still relentlessly accurate. One little slip and it's curtains. Accurate, relentless stamina is a huge advantage that outweighs any GM's superior positional understanding. Even if the GM understands better, he must still implement that understanding with perfect accuracy, and it is there that the machine defeats his purpose.

[Albert Silver]

I concur enterily with your analysis. No matter what Albert can say about studying opennings, even if he is right in a theoretical frame, he is not from a sycho point of view; the 1500 player is not such because he has not studied enough, but he has not studied enough because his personal features make of him a 1500 player with all that fact involves. First, lazyness. Second, lack of motive. Why should us, simple amateurs, expend thousands of hours to learn nothing like this? And, as you say, for what, if generally speaking we do not even master ABC of the game?. I still cannot handle a simple ending , two kings, one pawn, and I cannot care less. I will not now study that. I prefer to take a book of roman histouy or listening Haydn. Andf so and so.
We just like to be entertained and for that better guis are needed.

a pal
Fern

First of all, I didn't say *anything* about favoring opening study. Charles said that chess was reduced to "pattern recognition", as if this were some form of magic bullet to chess mastery. While there is certainly plenty of pattern recognition, as in all fields, claiming this is what separates the master from the amateur is a serious mistake. In fact the very claim that a 1300 amateur can understand what a master can if well explained is so flawed, that it really sounds like it could only come from a person who is on the amateur side since I cannot think of a master who would say this. Unless he were trying to sell you something....

[Albert Silver]

Think of it... top GMs can't win a match against top chess engines, period.

I disagree. A grandmaster who studied the way the engine worked could win by simply creating a positional strategy that falls outside of the range of brute force analysis of the engine and takes advantage of the positional weaknesses of the engine..

I also believe that a grandmaster could defeat an engine pointblank if the latter didn't have an opening book or endgame tablebase.

Of course, that's just my view, and others may well disagree.

I disagree because computers are still relentlessly accurate. One little slip and it's curtains. Accurate, relentless stamina is a huge advantage that outweighs any GM's superior positional understanding. Even if the GM understands better, he must still implement that understanding with perfect accuracy, and it is there that the machine defeats his purpose.

I have to agree. A few things are worth mentioning too. It is well documented that masters and grandmasters lose considerable strength when their own opening shields are removed, plus let us not forget the Rybka challenge where it played a pawn down therefore being without the benefit of its opening book.

[tomgdrums]

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.

Actually, Chessbase is great for finding endgames to study AND middle game positions. It is only as "opening-centric" as the user makes it out to be.

[fluviumque]

Well. Hmm - yes. Sometimes I think it would be nice, if Arena (for me the best available GUI for playing against engines) was a bit like Babaschess.net (fics frontend) - My babaschess looks really sexy, has a full screen mode and some very useful functions. It's GUI is more configurable than Arena, it seems to make use of more modern GUI concepts/programming IDEs.. As for the functionality, the auto analysis is better; calculated moves are managed inside tha GUI as variants, wheras in Arena you get text files with no GUI interaction.
Unfortunately in Babaschess, you can only Analyse the whole match...

A lot could be better, but also the development of Babas or Arena seems to have ceased.

[Michael Diosi]

Hi,

A lot could be better, but also the development of Babas or Arena seems to have ceased.

Nope, Arena development still goes on. Since you know who, doesn't respect copyrights there will be some updates but not as often as till now. You know whom to thank for this.

There was a thread here what you would like to see in Arena and what Martin said about the wishes.

As I said I am not going to invest money, time ideas to not even beeing cited or asked for permission.

Michael
http://www.playwitharena.com