9917 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
My coach told me to get a *proper* database program instead of Chessbase Light (free version). I am curious on what's the difference between CA and CB, and why does the CB starter package always seems so much more expensive than the CA Starter.
From what I read on the net, I am still left pulling my hair out on whether you can enter, save and annotate your own games into CA 10. If you have CA 10, perhaps you could save my 3 specks of hair still left on my head?
Both have their merits and limitations. Some players find ChessBase attractive. Others find Chess Assistant useful.Here is a link from our own site:
Could somebody give me a link to a ca 10's features? The program description only tells how the Opening Encyclopedia and Rybka 3 works.
My coach told me to get a *proper* database program instead of Chessbase Light (free version).
Interesting post. Since your coach was obviously down on the Lite version of Chessbase, did he not have any suggestions? Did he (or she) say what particular gaps in Lite warranted the advice?
Have you checked out SCID?
This post prompted me to post a new topic.
I noticed there is an automatic recommendation of chessbase full which can cost up to $368 for the mega version (with large databases) . it seems to me though that one can get:
scid - you can enter, save and annotate your own games AND you can have the engine auto-annotate your game. And then import as many large databases available into this to get same functionality
I think its time we start comparing what each software can do according to needs.
I'm sorry the database function of the Chessbase playing software (Fritz, Rybka, Shredder etc.) is inferior to the Chessbase Light database programm.
You should ask yourself which functions of CB or CA you really do need. Much can be done by the playing programs, even more by CB Light and almost anything by Scid.
Because of the look and feel I like CB best. BTW the differences between CB9 and CB10 are not that big.
I use both...
Thankyou for all of your replies!
Features I am looking for:
1.To annotate, enter and save your games (it seems to every program does that now)
2. The option to merge databases and copy games from one database to another (chessbase light would not do that)
3. To merge games into a tree. (Chessbase light does that, but I can only create a tree with one database. E.g, I need to copy and paste one database into another to create the tree that I am looking for.
4. You can use full game analysis with the engine which the program supports.
CB = database program (like Scid or CA)
Rybka = chess engine (like Zappa or Naum)
Rybka by Chessbase = chess engine with GUI which has minor database functions included (like Fritz or Rybka Aquarium)
CB9 does support all the fritztrainer videos and the Chessbase media system. CB11 doesn't exist yet.
SCID does all of what you want for free and quite easily too. note that 3 depends on 2. You copy from one database to another creating larger database and use that as tree. SCID also auto-annotates games you play from engine analysis (which chessbase doesn't have) and you can also play against the engine from any position. Not sure if chessbase has that either.
It is a good idea to get a full featured free software like scid before moving on to chessbase if at all necessary - in my case i know i dont need it.
i've tried to download SCID, it says there is an error in the start script...
I love Scid. I've never used Chessbase, but I don't believe it has anything substantial to add over Scid.
Have several databases open, open a Tree window in one (say some million game database), switch to the database of your own games and play through them, the Tree windows changes based on the current position but using games from the big database.
You can always have an engine running (I use the free version of Rybka), endgame tablebases work, you can play any position against the engine (whenever a book claims "and white wins", it's always good to prove this for yourself vs Rybka).
Searches can be ridiculously powerful. Search for endgames with one rook and one bishop each (same coloured bishops), and four pawns on the queenside each? No problem. IQP positions with all major pieces still there, and the e-file open? Fine. Et cetera.
The Opening Report gives statistics about the current positions you're looking at (how does it score, how often does castling long follow after this, which players played it most, what were the highest rated games, how popular is it...), then gives a list of the most popular move orders to reach it, and then it creates huge NCO-style tables based on the 100 highest-rated games that had this position. It's a great help.
You can click on players (like yourself) and get rating graphs over time, see which openings they play and how they score with them, et cetera.
Too many features to mention, but I'm very happy with it.
EDIT: Well, one negative: it's repertoire support sucks. There are the repertoire files, which are horrible to edit if you want to do it well, but then you can do searches on your repertoire (say, in the latest TWIC). Then there's also a sort of repertoire trainer that I haven't used yet in the latest version, and it uses a different repertoire. Ridiculous situation.
Right the reference window is part of the Chessbase database program only. In CB10 there is even a online reference search option where you can check the very latest games.
Fortunately I will get "Fritz 12" within the next two hours. If there is better database support I will let You know.
Auto-analyzing doesn't work with CB but as Catalyst_Kh said correctly there are better way to do this, especially when You use your own brains. The best analyzing tool on this planet btw is Aquarium's IDeA. But it needs some training to handle this. But when You put some effort into it You can go really deep into each given position.
Here is when I use auto-annotate. I just finish a 2-3 blitz games on say FICS. I want to go over them but I have no time. So I set scid to autoannotate any blunder (you can set the value - I use the default 0.2 i think) - I increase the engine thinking time per move to about 12 seconds and it does all 3 games without me having to attend to it. In my lesuire i can come back and go over it - This is particularly useful because I have yet to find a "perfect" game I played without an obvious blunder.
Maybe if you are very high rated player - it would be harder for the engine to spot an obvious blunder and you have to go over more carefully.
Another thing scid has : you can bookmark positions of ANY game in ANY database. And at another time, you can retrieve it with one click - it will open the right database and game. This is in response to someone saying they can do this only in chessbase ...And you can arrange them in folders too.. I only found this out now..
You also have up to 6 custom flags to tag a game with--- this is similar to the medals feature in chessbase.
zxzyz your right, something is better than nothing, but seen blunders will not teach you to play better, that is the problem. For example how you know which thought algorythm of yours failed to spot that blunder and how should you think next time, why this or that line you evaluated has wrong evaluation and etc. I tried another approach, maybe you will like it - i analyse games partially, in each game just one or several segments which i need to understand and learn, while other part of the game i left intact to save time. Even with that i barely have time for analyses.
I disagree. Many of the blunders caught are of the " puzzle type category". That is spot the skewer, fork mate in 4 etc. are essential to be a good chess player. And knowing how its done will help than not knowing at all!
I pay attention to the more tactical situations and see how I went wrong. Because of the auto-annotation I get to a key point in the game where I blundered very quickly later on at my own lesiure. Many times I was playing well until this point when I made a mistake. A few times I have missed some beautiful checkmate opportunities. When I find these I flag these games with the tactics flag. One I am specially interested is a "brilliancy" mainly because of a nice combination ..
Now if I really want to find out what happened in the game i just played and I HAVE TIME. I will quickly run through the game right away with the analysis on, and find this point. All this is for blitz games mind you, I dont study that much and I haven't analysed the slower games I've played here.
The thing is if I play about 10-15 blitz games - a lot of them are probably junk but when i come back to it another time - I find some interesting annotations/score on the games that change my view of many of them.At that point only, I can decide to analyze the game in segments like you suggest. But its really quick to just import into db and run auto-annotate.
I believe if your FIDE Elo is lower than 1900 then there really is no need to study openings in details and being so up to speed with the latest Master games . It just does not make sense to do so if you are going to hang a piece after playing a "perfect" opening.
One problem with allowing an engine 12 seconds to look at each position is that if you come up with a brilliant sacrifice that leads to a forced mate quite a few moves down the line, the engine will probably flag that move as a blunder. It is always better to spend a little more time on your analysis just to make sure which moves are blunders and which moves are brilliancies.
By the way, who's the guy at Your avatar?
Sorry, but I had to come up with that one. As a true Tal-fan I don't believe in correct or incorrect sacrifices but those which work and those that don't
I doubt that very much. Most modern engines - Toga with SCid, new fritz , Rybka do find most of the spectacular combinations in GM games. I have tried this with many of the game of the day puzzle at chessgames.com. The engines need only about 5-10 seconds max. And since I am not anywhere as good as a GM - 12 seconds is adequate..
Note - the auto-annotate is useful when you DONT HAVE much time.
Obviously, I am not going to call my games brilliancies when I haven't spent time on it ...(I do however flag them as such if the engine found some beautiful forcing combination )
I have been an on/off player for a some years now and I just dont dedicate much time to it overall - though in certain periods I feel I am spending too much time on chess:)
At one point i never used a computer at all for chess. It seemed to me more natural to just go over mistakes that can be corrected by the engine rather than compare/analyse opening lines deeply.
As far as sacrifices incorrect/corrrect. I find that in my games I make incorrect sacrifices and win because of the pressure on my opponent (not cc games of course) , but I have found some incredible but correct according to engine combinations that I missed that i wished i had played
Interestingly, there is no chess database software that is compatible with chess960 (fischer random) castling rules.
Except Arena which doesn't work for me, it always crashes when i try castling when playing against engine.
I purchased CA 10 and borrowed CB 10 from a friend.
Here are my observations (I just started out on CB 10, so excuse me for any errors)
Generally, CA 10's searches are much faster, in fact, way faster than CB 10's. The criterias for searches between the two databases seems to be the same, both have the same criterias the user can choose from. The only difference is that CB has the 'medals' criteria which Ca 10 does not, because it does not have the medal feature at all.
The most notable defect in CA 10 is that it does not have a 'repertoire' base, which CB 10 have. However, CB 10 does not have 'Opening Tests', a function of CA 10 which I have used on more than a few occasions.
CA 10 comes with Comprehensive Chess Openings 2008 by GM Kalinin. I am not sure if Chessbase Starter package comes with a similar openings manual because I only have CB 10, not CB Starter Package.
Both programs have Opening Report, and Find Novelties feature which I have yet to test.
I am not sure if there is a 'prepare for your opponent' feature in CB, but in CA 10, it was a very detailed report.
In general, I like CB 10's board much better than the board in CA 10. You have to hide all the game info to make the CA 10 board bigger, while CB has the game info to the side instead of below the board.
I also found CB's fonts more appealing.
I think it is the analysis, as well as the speed of the search which CA 10 is much better in.
There is no game analysis in CB, a feature which I am sure will be useful to many people.
Looking at the tree alone, both programs to a very good job, although (excuse me for repeating this) CA 10 is once again much faster. However, that must be weighed against the fact that (again) CB has the bigger, and consequently, the more appealing board.
CB 10 can create a tournament crosstable, something which CA 10 cannot do (or something which I have not found out where it is yet).
The fact that every thing which CB opens it opens in a new window is quite annoying, and I much prefer the CA way.
CA 10 is faster, and has more analysis features, while CB 10 have the better graphics. My personal opinion is that 'faster searches' and 'game analysis' outweighs CB 10's better graphics, but that is just my opinion. Perhaps you would much prefer CB 10 if you already have an analysis program such as Fritz.
If memory serves me correctly, there is an option in CA in which you can choose when to automatically update.
I just started to look at CB, so I havent really used the reference pane yet, but it will definately be something I will begin to experiment with.
Thanks for the information on the dossier by the way.
Your reply intrigues!
Can you elaborate on why you feel both are useful for your needs, please?
4/26/2015 - Mate in 2
by Sultekin1 6 minutes ago
Nigel Short: Women's brains not chess brains
by Elubas 7 minutes ago
Carlsen and the quest for 2900
by bb_gum234 15 minutes ago
Are you allowed to have pizza delivered to you during a tournament game?
by isayoldboy 17 minutes ago
Building my own clock
by kleelof 33 minutes ago
How easy is to play d4
by PINK_BERRY 46 minutes ago
Scid for PC versus Scid for Mac
by roryduffy8 62 minutes ago
Facebook group disliking a chess site
by ViennaGame 76 minutes ago
by 64digu 78 minutes ago
Sicilian- moscow variation
by hayabusahayate16 83 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!