Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.analysis (
More info?)
>>This really is quite an impressive claim! Taken to its extreme, it
>>appears to me that it might just render Informator redundant, if it
>>works as effectively as you seem to be suggesting that it does.
>It certainly is! When the concept was introduced, it was called a
"theory
machine" and it does make Informator antiquated if not redundant.
Hmmm... yet according to the estimate which you make below, about 80%
of GMs
don't know about this "theory machine" of yours, or they don't trust
it, or they simply *prefer* Informator, NiC, RCR, CCYB,... are they all
so Luddite?
I believe I read somewhere (possibly in an old issue of "Chess Monthly"
published in London) that GM Julio Granda Zuniga of Peru, who works
much of the time as a farmer, does not study chess at all, but relies
solely on his (clearly considerable) raw talent.
It seems to me that most other GMs download TWIC every week, and use
ChessBase in their daily work... To me, this suggests that for 80% of
GMs, their doing these things is all of the "theory machine" they
appear to need. Would you agree with that assessment, even if, clearly
(and possibly with good reason) you believe that they might be better
off using BookUp?
>>Around
>>ten years ago there was a section in Informator headed: "Practice
>>corrects the estimations" which gave examples, from master play, of
>>"established" evaluations' having been overturned by some new
discovery
>>in some line or other.
>That is the process automated by Bookup.
Wow.
>>It seems to me to come down to this: how accurate and/or effective
does
>>one consider backsolving combined with the overnight analysis
provided
>>by any number of engines, on the one hand, in comparison with looking
>>up the theory in the latest Informator or New in Chess Yearbook or
>>Russian Chess Review or Correspondence Chess Yearbook or even an old
>>copy of Shakmatny v USSR and conducting analysis oneself, on the
other?
>That's exactly it. Whether you rely on analysis by an engine or a GM
or
>both, it must be accurate and complete or Bookup's backsolving is
GIGO.
Garbage In, Garbage Out.... hmmm.... might this be the reason why most
GMs seem to prefer to rely upon their *own analysis* rather than that
generated by a "theory machine"?
Might it also be a reason for those of us who are confirmed patzers to
do likewise?
>>Very approximately, what percentage of GMs use BookUp in this way and
>>to this end, do you think?
>I'd guess 20 percent. I wish I could say it was more. Ultimately
they're
all doing it by hand.
Hmmm... yes... GIGO. Hmmmm....
>>What use is BookUp to a patzer, such as I am, for whom learning and
>>playing a line provided by BookUp and then hanging my
>>knight/bishop/rook/queen/king appears no different, qualitatively,
from
>>learning and playing a line in a book and then hanging my
>>knight/bishop/rook/queen/king (been there, done that, got the t-shirt
>>[literally!])?
>I think I got that t-shirt also.
To a patzer, Bookup is a way to
pack
*other* players' backsolved ideas into their heads fast.
Yes. That's one of my points, I think. I used to memorise quite a lot
of theory, perfectly accurately, and (if I managed to avoid hanging
anything) when I reached the end of a line which promised a
"comfortable and enduring edge" I'd think to myself: "What *is* my
dark-squared bishop *doing* there, exactly...?"
What is the point of patzers' getting "*other* players' backsolved
ideas" into our heads? Won't it just confuse us even more? Heaven knows
I'm confused enough as it is....
> To leave
>patzer-dom behind, one must ultimately become brave enough to create
one's
>own ideas and improvements and test them. Even if you're wrong, the
act of
>analyzing with that much responsibility will make you a better player,
ala
>Kotov's rule about publishing one's analysis in _Think Like a
Grandmaster_.
Do you think that TLAG is good? Really?
I do agree wholeheartedly with your assertion that it's better to do
one's own analysis than to rely on a "theory machine" which is still
encumbered by a principle as mundane as "Garbage In, Garbage Out".
<snip>
>>Right, so duplicates are bad then, I'm glad we cleared up that one.
It
>>took almost a week, but what the heck....
>Duplicates may be "bad" but they don't cause Bookup any problems,
unlike
with a game database.
Sure they do... they slow it down. You just said that. You're not
contradicting yourself, are you?
>>Does BookUp feature a facility which identifies and deletes
duplicates
>>(like, say, the one that ChessBase provides)?
>No. In fact, Bookup was published and used for years before it even
had the
ability to store and retrieve games. Deleting duplicates is for a game
database.
Aha! Another reason for you to check out the competition? Another
reason *not to buy BookUp*? I don't have hard disk space to waste....
This really is a most enlightening conversation
🙂
Mark
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram