Forums

Chessmaster analysis

Sort:
nixthename

I have chess master 10 and i really like its analysis.  It gives you computer anotations. It tells you the general purpose of the moves, logical continuations, better alternitives, and how good a move is. It seems like some people like fritz more, and im wondering what it has that chestmaster doesnt.  What are your opinions on chessmaster and other programs analysis?

Shivsky

A few reasons why the Fritz/ChessBase UIs may be better:

1. Not sure if you can plug in engines (including Houdini, one of the strongest free engines avaiable) ... looks like you are stuck with CM's native engine. I read that ChessMaster cannot work with UCI engines ... which is rather silly.

2. Not sure if you can plug in any position and perform interactive+ multiple line analysis, i.e. I want to see the top 5 lines in a given position etc.

3. The CM10 engine, while satisfactory for club players, is relatively ancient relative to the ones floating around today (Rybka, Houdini, Deep Fritz etc.)

4. Fritz as an "scaled down" opponent does a way better job emulating human players than Chess  Master with its handicap/training modes.

5. Finally => As you move towards more serious chess analysis + study ... for any position I look at (my own games, master games, etc.) , I'd like to have:

i) The best engine I can afford with interactive, multiple line analysis, customizing options for the engine, hash tables and endgame tablebases.

ii) A massive database of Expert/Master-level  games played through history (usually 3-4million is what most serious chess hobbyists people have in their laptops) which I can quickly cross-reference to see who else reached the "same" position I am looking at, what results did they have and access to their games.

iii) Being able to use i) + ii) to build/store/update my own opening repertoire, make notes, draw arrows and easily export/publish the same to documents, the web, etc. 

So in a nutshell, i) + ii) + iii) is a reason many people move away from entry-level tools like ChessMaster and prefer to work with Chessbase, Aquarium with state-of-the-art engines they can cherry-pick and use the way they want.

I'd compare this with the analogy of buying a point-and-shoot digital camera with tons of bells and whistles before you make the plunge into more powerful DSLR which focuses on fewer but more important things really, really well.

nixthename
Shivsky wrote:

A few reasons why the Fritz/ChessBase UIs may be better:

1. Not sure if you can plug in engines (including Houdini, one of the strongest free engines avaiable) ... looks like you are stuck with CM's native engine. I read that ChessMaster cannot work with UCI engines ... which is rather silly.

2. Not sure if you can plug in any position and perform interactive+ multiple line analysis, i.e. I want to see the top 5 lines in a given position etc.

3. The CM10 engine, while satisfactory for club players, is relatively ancient relative to the ones floating around today (Rybka, Houdini, Deep Fritz etc.)

4. Fritz as an "scaled down" opponent does a way better job emulating human players than Chess  Master with its handicap/training modes.

5. Finally => As you move towards more serious chess analysis + study ... for any position I look at (my own games, master games, etc.) , I'd like to have:

i) The best engine I can afford with interactive, multiple line analysis, customizing options for the engine, hash tables and endgame tablebases.

ii) A massive database of Expert/Master-level  games played through history (usually 3-4million is what most serious chess hobbyists people have in their laptops) which I can quickly cross-reference to see who else reached the "same" position I am looking at, what results did they have and access to their games.

iii) Being able to use i) + ii) to build/store/update my own opening repertoire, make notes, draw arrows and easily export/publish the same to documents, the web, etc. 

So in a nutshell, i) + ii) + iii) is a reason many people move away from entry-level tools like ChessMaster and prefer to work with Chessbase, Aquarium with state-of-the-art engines they can cherry-pick and use the way they want.

I'd compare this with the analogy of buying a point-and-shoot digital camera with tons of bells and whistles before you make the plunge into more powerful DSLR which focuses on fewer but more important things really, really well.


I agree, the fact that you can't plug in your own engine (huodini, firebird, ect) is a flaw. I agree with you that higher level players would definantly want chessbase or similer, but for a mid or lowever level player, chessmaster is pretty cool. Thanks for your input

planeden
Shivsky wrote:

I'd compare this with the analogy of buying a point-and-shoot digital camera with tons of bells and whistles before you make the plunge into more powerful DSLR which focuses on fewer but more important things really, really well.


i love the analogy. 

nixthename
Shivsky wrote:

 

1. Not sure if you can plug in engines (including Houdini, one of the strongest free engines avaiable) ... looks like you are stuck with CM's native engine. I read that ChessMaster cannot work with UCI engines ... which is rather silly.


It let me plug in stockfish, im not sure if that answers your question or not.