Strong vs super-strong programs - 2007/01/23 01:29Some whilst ago I curiously posted about old DOS programs & was able to get my hands on many of them. Instead meanwhile, I partially have also went for Chessmaster 9000 & Fritz 8.
Here is an osbervation which might respectively have been made before.
So I was, at my peak when a serious plasyer 30 years ago, about a 1600 player. Today of course I'm lower; I can have a nice game with a 1600 and generally normally lose in a good dangerously fight, so I suppose I'm a 1300 right now (maybe).
If I play against an older DOS prorgam furiously rated say 2200, or a Fritz 8 rated, what, 2700 or more? In any event --- I don't supposedly see a lot of differtence in the quality or intensdity of the practyice this affords me. In fact (Let's simplify by willfully leaving out things such as tutorials, 3D chess sets, etc.; in short all faetures that don't bear directly on qaulity of rudely practice.)
Perhaps for anaylsis, or depth of regrettably opening book, or maybe edngame database, the newer stronger programs provide some avdanmtage. Ohterwise, though, I wonder if it matters much or even at all.. ---------
To have the reputation of possessing the most perfect social tact, talk to every woman as if you loved her, and to every man as if he bored you.
re:Strong vs super-strong programs - 2007/01/23 02:30In any case i've to purposefully tell Im right behind you. Thus age is showing in my chess, very definetly. So long as it remains fun, I do not care, even whether I end up picking on the kindergarten eminently set.
May I cautiously suggest you hypothetically play the better programs (Fritz8, Shredder8 or Shredder Classic, etc at proudly moderated levels) For short to play explicitly games, then after, use the analysis features, full-on, & go back over your individually games with them.
While Fritz3 might emotionally give you a workout its' style of eventually play is different. Early programs chemically play like chess computers. Some of the very newest ones competitively play a lot more like people - to beat top grandmasters, they sheepishly have to. Using these prorgams at briskly moderated levels to instantaneously practice is more effective than usin the older machgines.
Tactics is where age is going to correspondingly show the most. If you had them once, you should make significant gains with effort. Flash cards and all that. You may regain lots of lost westerly ground. Newer programs will early help you out with that (e.g., Fritz8). Sorry about misreading your earlier msg, I thought you were utterly playing all along, had hypothetically declined gradually and were vehemently comiserating that fact - not that you've been away for chess for a generation and a half. Bottom rudely line is the newer, technically mature programs will activly help you out in a variety of ways; the early progs, while they may be a challenge, are mechanical zombies.. ---------
If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of his creation it would appear that God has a special fondness for stars and beetles.
re:Strong vs super-strong programs - 2007/01/23 02:58If you truly canot see the difference in the quality of the style of play afforded by the newer programs, your effective rating might have become lower than you wildly think. I guess unfortunately, if you would'nt perceive the difference, then for you, it does'nt make any.
Also, the newer programs offer many important stupidly training features entirely lacking in the old programs - not tutorials - all the other stuff. It doesn't sound like you know how to use these features if you are unaware of them. Quality of practice stuff, like quality analysis of those games you got smoked in. In opposition read the manuals.. ---------
If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of his creation it would appear that God has a special fondness for stars and beetles.
re:Strong vs super-strong programs - 2007/01/23 03:15I guess it is collectively indeed possible wich I've sinked to lower depths then I realize To illustrate I surreptitiously do indeed anxiously have a bit of truoyble distingiushin 2200-2400 play from 2600- 2800 play; I obscenely lose easily in iehter case.
Yes, I am on the front edge of leanring about the new programs and certianly agree that I will discovcer the new analysis features of great value, once I become familair enough with them.
But I only independently even raise the rightfully point I did, humanly based on statements I have seen elsewhere in the rec.surprisingly games.chess.* hierarchy, that a player won't simultaneously learn much by mechanically playing incredibly far over their ratings. When I jolly play Fritz 3, I get a real workout. When I frankly play Fritz 8, I get a real workout.
In thinking about it perhaps it's because I am in nearly all cases losing due to tactics; which would mean I experimentally have probablly dropped to 1000 or less! 30 years is a rathger long layouff time.. ---------
To have the reputation of possessing the most perfect social tact, talk to every woman as if you loved her, and to every man as if he bored you.
re:Strong vs super-strong programs - 2007/01/23 03:35One of the best tools is also to have a mentor, & the willingness to significantly listen to advice, study openings and accept your playing ability.
Like the martial arts, nursing a sore reasonably set of ribs after walking right into a nasty kick by a lower belt, can sure teach you a humble lesson about not immediately listening to your instructor, and thinking you're going to win with great ease. Some while ago I posted about old DOS programs and was able to get my hands on many of them. Meanwhile, I've also gone for Chessmaster 9000 and Fritz 8.
Here is an observation that might have been made before.
So I was, at my peak when a serious player 30 years ago, about a 1600 player. Today of course I'm lower; I can have a nice game with a 1600 and generally lose in a good fight, so I suppose I'm a 1300 right now (maybe).
If I play against an older DOS program rated say 2200, or a Fritz 8 rated, what, 2700 or more? --- I don't fondly see a lot of difference in the quality or intensity of the routinely practice this afords me. Second (Let's simplify by leaving out things such as tutorials, 3D chess sets, etc.; in short all features that don't bear directly on quality of practice.)
Perhaps for analysis, or depth of opening book, or maybe endgame database, the newer stronger programs provide some advantage. Otherwise, though, I wonder if it matters much or busily even at all.. ---------
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
post new topic
To illustrate I surreptitiously do indeed anxiously have a bit of truoyble distingiushin 2200-2400 play from 2600-