How much am I missing using only free software?

Fritz and Aquarium are aimed at different audiences I think.  Fritz has a lot of training features: Friend mode, Coach watching over you, ways of making the engine play worse, so your regular player has more of a chance.  Aquarium is intended more for serious analysis buffs, who are willing to put in the time to figure out the cryptic interface where access to basic features disappears depending on what mode you are in.  I haven't seen Fritz 12, but I hope it hasn't become harder to use in the process of imitating Aquarium.

When I tried to download that it said that I "didn't have the associated program", or something like that. I have no idea about most things on computers, do you know how I'd get round that? Thanks.

Actually, SCID4.0 seems to be doing both of these things very well, no?

Jay-zoos! Wish I'd never read this lot now, my head is swimming.... surely, it's just easier to play chess.

SCID lacks decent repertoire features, opening keys, sortable lists, backsolving, batch EPD analysis and advanced analysis features.  Sure, it is pretty good for a free program, but I don't think it can really compete with Chessbase, ChessAssistant, Aquarium or Chess Openings Wizard in their areas of strength.

I assume you mean the IcofyBase. Strange, because it works fine for me. Make sure you have an archive-handling program like WinRAR.

Fritz 12, apart from the new interface, looks little different from Fritz 11. Rybka 3 is still stronger than the new Fritz.

And when are ChessBase going to offer some new 2D pieces?!

- what is EPD analysis? what are its strong/weak point?

- what is monte carlo analysis (I am familiar with Monte Carlo procedures in statistics/physics, should I assume that it evaluates a position according to random sampling of subsequent variations?)? what are its strong/weak points?

After some more googling last night I found out that chessbase has something similar to interactive analysis, called shared analysis. Does shared analysis work only in chessbase rybka or in all chessbase engines (like e.g. Fritz)? what are the pros/cons of shared analysis vs interactive analysis?

I'm still leaning towards Aquarium for an analysis environment as the interactive analysis feature sounds the closest thing to what I am looking for.

Not really relevant, but is there something like CT-Art (which is for tactics training) but designed for endgame training?

EPD are files that contain positions in trees.  If you put an assessment of some kind at the end of all variations (called leaf nodes I believe), you can use a program like Chess Openings Wizard, Chess Assistant or Aquarium to propagate the assessments back through the tree, telling you how good an opening move is given best play by both sides.  Grandmasters do this kind of thing naturally, looking for what lines of their repertoire have been busted.  Unfortunately, inputing a repertoire and assessments is a time-consuming business, but it can pay dividends in won games if you are willing to put the time into it.

I've never really seen a detailed description of shared analysis, but if I remember correctly it has something to do with one engine working on a position while you use another to explore different lines, but they both store their findings in the same hash table.  I don't trust Monte Carlo analysis because it's just the results of a bunch of blunder-filled games.  ChessAssistant has something called Background Analysis which allows you to set up task queues a bit like IDeA.  IDeA has potential, but the way the Aquarium has chosen to implement it, it's slow, runs along lines in a wide pattern, and doesn't give you access to the engine while it works.  Even so, at the moment, IDeA is one of a kind.  Hopefully, other chess software developers will take a crack at a similar feature before too long.

Thanks for the tongue-in-cheek recommendation, but this is not my style.

It seems like if a customer buys Aquarium/Rybka he gets a big discount on Chess Assistant 10 Starter (about same price as CBL). What are the pros/cons of each (CA-CBL)?

Besides the offer I'm still leaning towards CBL, most professional players I know use Chessbase and their judgement hints me that it is more convenient.

I've tinkered around with ChessAssistant a little, but I am not really an expert.  It usually comes with Hugebase in a package that is much cheaper than Chessbase + Megabase.  The implementation of fonts is a bit wonky.  There is no Reference pane, and CA uses openings trees that you have to scroll through a move at a time rather than opening keys.  It does do batch EPD analysis and backsolving while Chessbase does not.  I prefer Chessbase, but the two programs do have a very similar set of features.

I have unfortunately experimented with all of the above:  Chessbase GUI (with Junior 10), Aquarium GUI and Chessbase light.

I always come back to the Shredder GUI.  It is efficient, has an easy database search, is VERY UNbuggy, and very stable.  It is the easiest GUI to work with and you can use any UCI engine with it.  I use Shredder 11, Rybka 3 and Hiarcs 12.1.

I have gotten rid of all the rest and just use Shredder's GUI now.  The ONLY thing Shredder's GUI doesn't do well is printing a game.  So I keep Chessbase lite JUST for printing if I ever need to print out a game.

I don't think any of the other GUI's come close to Shredder's.  But of course that is just an opinion.

Shredder is very stable, but it doesn't have any database or opening repertoire functions at all.  It is mostly for just playing against, like Winboard.

I think Shredder actually functions as a database quite well.  Opening repertoire functions?  Not it doesn't have them but I like it's database capabilities better then chessbase stuff.  But I am rather utilitarian when it comes to these kinds of things.

Shredder Classic is a nice GUI, but I wouldn't really consider it a database, at least not in the same sense that Chessbase or ChessAssistant are.  I don't think you can view a list of moves in different games even.

I used to access chess.com using my abacus, but then I graduated to a slide rule, and now I just run down to the local copy shop, print out all my games, and then examine them at my leisure at home.  It's kind of hard to play blitz that way though.  If the printer jams, I usually lose on time.

I've being playing around with chessbase for a little while now, and I still like scid better - maybe I am used to it but I just like the annotation feature to check my games better. The other weird thing is I think chessbase is actually slower in some cases than scid (both the free version and the full chessbase 10). The big db has about 3.5 millin games, while I have another large db in scid about the same slightly more. And its a lot easier to modify an existing game or add in scid than in chessbase. It took almost 14 minutes to add 4 games to the large db. 

While I like the fact that you can sort the results quickly in chessbase - I have never had the need to do this from the opening tree in scid - I just go deeper in the game and there are less games that are similar.

Almost every feature I need is already in SCID (and it has find novelty too!)

Though I do like the ability to get games from online db quickly.

But its the analysis window of SCId that is far superior.Auto-annotate being key.

I tried some games in playchess and ran through them after but could not review the games that well because there is no auto-anotate and i have to manually go through each game.

Is there a way for example to play against the engine from a certain position in chessbase? _

Anway, I think chessbase may be useful for some, but scid is more than adequate esp if you have figured out its not so user friendly interface.

Chessbase really is for professional chessplayers - and i certainly will never be

  What I like to know is of any Master level players who use something besides chessbase or don't use software at all!

- that would be interesting to know.

In the Chessbase version of Rybka/Shredder/Fritz, you can create, and load a one-game opening book that will determine what opening the engine plays.  The only way to play against the computer in Chessbase is set the engine running, and then press the space bar when you want it to move.  Rybka/Shredder/Fritz also has the auto-annotation feature which you value so higly.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Find novelty feature in SCID seems just to point to the move that is new, while Chessbase gives you a sortable list of games where you can see the continuation of each.

Kasparov, Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Karpov and Shirov all seem to use Chessbase.  I haven't really heard of GMs who use anything else, although I would guess some Russian GMs use ChessAssistant seeing as it is a Russian company.  ozzie I believe is a titled player who has said that he doesn't use software.

Yes, but Rybka/Shredder/Fritz having  the auto-annotation feature are not free are they?

In any case I dont like the idea of using chessbase for one thing and then Rybka software to do analysis - this seems like a real waste of time.

Scid with Toga 2, a  free version of Rybka, and a few weaker engines that i can tweak elo to my rating so that I can play against. I am puzzled at the "training" tab in chessbase 10 since the "training" mode in scid allows me to play the engine or play against the "tree".

Find novelty interesting - I actually have no use for that feature as chessbase does it. Seems more useful for current game ..

In any case, I know that chessbase has "more", the problem is I dont need the "more" and I am getting slightly less because my games (which I value more than any gm game) are slightly harder to go over now. 

I now have both chessbase 10 (hmmm. .. dont ask how I got it) and the free version chessbase 2009. So I am still comparing features..

But it looks like I dont need it for my use. I can understand top level GMs using though.

How much am I  Missing ,....

The answer is : Not much at all.  If you do need the extra features, you would be already owning chessbase .

And in addition to ozzie i am sure there are many titled players who dont use sofware or just use free software.

That being said - chessbase really is quite good,  but its not "faster" than scid .. Many things like adding games via copy and paste to a large db is much slower...

If chessbase could do that a bit quicker, do auto-annotate and allow me to play against the engine from any position - (I find that useful esp in playing "winning " positions  in Master games )  - then I would gladly fork over the money to use it since I find its interface far more intuitive.