Best program for automatic game analysis / annotation


  • 10 months ago · Quote · #41

    mgmead

    What a bunch of jerks.

    Hi!  I've decided in my life that I need a car to get around - what car do you like?

    "You don't need a car.  Driving makes you weak."

     

    Just answer the question - let him be responsible for his life.  If you MUST comment on how he should do analysis, still ANSWER THE QUESTION.  Lame.

    Fritz looks like a good engine, chess.com online has analysis as well.  Of course, ANY software will show you the dip in your score while you are analyzing the game yourself, so if you see points drop, you can look at it.

    Most people on this thread are PRE-computer people ... they cherish pencil and paper, they cherish wood and boards, they revere OTB.

    Analysis with a computer is changing the game every day - be a part of it.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #42

    InDetention

    What you should do is first analyze the game. Then I reccomend you put it into Arena 3.5 (or 3.0) or Scid vs PC to check if your analysis is right.

    In my opinion Stockfish 6 is the best, as second strongest engine right now (behind Komodo, but you really don't need to spend $60+ on an engine that's only 16 points higher than the other one). It is also free, and is easily downloadable on Windows or Macintosh. Linux is another story, but unless you have Linux, Stockfish 6 is very good.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #43

    JugglinDan

    Stockfish 6 works just fine on Linux also. Many distros have a pre-compiled version in their package manager.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #44

    InDetention

    Correction: Stockfish 6 works fine on Linux, but I couldn't seem to find a way to download Arena on Linux.

    I'm not sure about Scid vs PC, but I believe it works fine on Linux as well.

    But just a question for the OP; why do you need this information? In my expierience, when I was at your level (OP), I needed very little computer work. Maybe just tactics and videos, and that's it! I analyzed my game with my coach (you can probably just ask people in the forums to do the same thing) and myself, so I didn't need much computer.

    But that's just me. Maybe someone else thinks otherwise. Just my 2 cents.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #46

    luscinius

    I have Linux, and I can confirm that both scid-vs-pc and Stockfish run natively on it.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #47

    hdjur_jcv

    I have requested here:
     
     
    an article about:
     
    Comparison_of_Chess_GUIs with respect to automatic analysis features, reliable sources should be found in chess periodicals or portals, at least Fritz, Chessmaster, Arena, SCID vs PC, LucasChess, Tarrasch should appear in rows, and different important features as found by the author, in columns
     
    I wanted to write it by my self, based on my own research, but realized that I don't count as a reliable source, and original research cannot be base for an article there. Although, that wasn't much of original research or something anybody cannot done, I just basically installed on my PC whatever I could for free: Arena, SCID vs PC, LucasChess, Tarrasch and started to compare them, started reading reviews on Fritz and Chessmaster I could find online (for free), came up with some ideas on my own about how this things should be implemented and so. But being self critical as I am, I decided not to try to offer my insights to any of such chess magazines, because I believe I would be rejected, and I really cannot find such a comparison in these reliable sources. If you do, point it out please. Also, if someone is able to write such an article for Wikipedia, I would appreciate it very much.
  • 8 months ago · Quote · #48

    C-Crusher

    Fritz 15?

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #50

    hdjur_jcv

    pfren wrote:
    [COMMENT DELETED]

     What's that?

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #51

    aman_makhija

    hdjur_jcv wrote:
    pfren wrote:
    [COMMENT DELETED]

     What's that?

    It means he deleted his comment.

    And yeah, stockfish 6 is best

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #52

    hdjur_jcv

    aman_makhija wrote:
    hdjur_jcv wrote:
    pfren wrote:
    [COMMENT DELETED]

     What's that?

    It means he deleted his comment.

    And yeah, stockfish 6 is best

     The question was:

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=What%27s+that%3F

    Like: "Come again?", "You said something?" etc...

    And by the way, you compare apples and oranges. I may also think that Mercedes is the best, but why would I write such a thing here, in this thread?

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #53

    TomiBodwwell

     I played someone who was obviously cheating and I checked their game records and they never got banned...  I checked the moves on stockfish and they were playing the best ones possible! Am I playing a bot or an [removed. Please don't post expletives -- MOD]?!

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #54

    hdjur_jcv

    The main idea behind my posting here was hypothesis that not only computers are superior to humans in playing chess, but they can be also superior in chess tutoring. Although the former is actually more like a proven fact, the latter still sounds like a heresy to many. It basically means that learning chess would no longer require any interaction with people, some of it is already present on this site, at least for premium members.

    It revolves very much around computer capability to analyze ones games, present the results in a humanly understandable and beneficial way, study her/his weaknesses and prepare adequate excersises, ... whatever is part of a normal training process. 

    Analyzing games of master players in this context is for example a task similar, but not entirely identical to the one already mentioned. The difference is that the pupil already has some clue about ideas behind each move played in games he/she took part of, while that is not neccessarily the case when dealing with master games. So this requires a different approach with respect to "configuring the output" of analysis, but still, these both are basically the same "automatic game analysis / annotation" task.

     

    I'm aware of the fact that what I mentioned there is just a tip of the iceberg, primarily built for Windows, and when it comes to chess GUI's for Android, there is a plethora of other programs, literally hundreds of them, that I didn't look at. Any sensible input here would be greatly appreciated...

     

    For example, one formal point is with respect to the input and output of that feature. They both should be the most standard PGN's, not producing non standard characters/tags while annotating, so that afterwards you cannot import it anywhere without editing first to remove the excessive formatting, and such things...

     
  • 6 months ago · Quote · #55

    Martin_Stahl

    hdjur_jcv wrote:

    ...

    It revolves very much around computer capability to analyze ones games, present the results in a humanly understandable and beneficial way, study her/his weaknesses and prepare adequate excersises, ... whatever is part of a normal training process. 

    ...

     

     

    This is the problem. Most programs can present lines but in many cases, the reasons why that line is better than another is not clear and the program can't explain it to you.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #56

    hdjur_jcv

    Martin_Stahl wrote:

    hdjur_jcv wrote:

    ...

    It revolves very much around computer capability to analyze ones games, present the results in a humanly understandable and beneficial way, study her/his weaknesses and prepare adequate excersises, ... whatever is part of a normal training process. 

    ...

     

     

    This is the problem. Most programs can present lines but in many cases, the reasons why that line is better than another is not clear and the program can't explain it to you.

    OK, so which programs did you test for this purpose?

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #57

    Sommerswerd

    No point analysing your games by yourself without an engine because you will be using the same thinking-process as you used in the game itself.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #58

    aman_makhija

    sommerswerd @ post 57

    • You have unlimited time analyzing a game by your self, whereas in the actual game you had only 30 seconds or so on average per position. You ca go to the critical point and spend 30 minutes, and find out the truth.
    • There is no pressure on you while analysing a game, whereas there is during the actual game. A mistake in analysis costs nothing.
    • You can always give your games to a coach, or post it so people can explain to you in English where you and your opponent went wrong. Compuers can only give a confusing mixture of letters, co-ordinates and evaluations.
    • You can move the pieces around while analyzing, whereas whil playing you have to visualize possibilities

     

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #59

    hdjur_jcv

    OK, so I just realized Martin_Stahl already posted in this thread, and pretty much answered the question, but it was 3 years ago, so the question still makes sense.


Back to Top

Post your reply: