My once favorite chess site chess.com inspired me to write this program. My account allowed me to do only the "Deep" analysis of my games (2-3 minutes per game), and not the "Maximum" (4-6 minutes per game). In any case, computer analysis at chess.com is slow, since it does not use the Stockfish binary engine, but its implementation in the Java script translated into the language. Thus, the results of the analysis of games obtained on the website chess.com are often unsatisfactory. Comparison of the results of the analysis of games on the website chess.com and the local analysis by the Stockfish binary is far from in favor of the former.

Curiously, right after this program was published, my chess.com account was closed without any explanation and no return on my annual membership fee! (I had to claim it myself later). Was my program seriously damaging them financially? In their place, I would be ashamed to make money on low-quality analysis of chess games (made by the free Stockfish chess engine!) And to impose a time limit on the analysis of a game depending on the amount of money paid for membership. We can only wish chess.com success in their quest for "fair" play!

In addition, analysis like Chesscom's just doesn't exist or really doesn't work in chess programs under Windows. SCID vs. PC doesn't have it, and Chessbase doesn't do deep analysis at all! I wonder what the developers think about this?

Therefore, I decided to write my own analyzer of chess games, similar to Chesscom's one, only much faster, easier to install and convenient to set up and use.

Functionality of the analyzer of chess games "Creatica"

Key features and limitations

• Easy to install
• Simplicity and ease of use. It is enough to right-click on the pgn file and select "Analyze". The file obtained as a result of the analysis will automatically open in the graphical application for pgn files by default
• New in version 4.1! Graphical interface for selecting lots for analysis
• New in version 4.1! The best engine move is now saved in the best_moves.db database for quick searches. No need to re-spend time analyzing a known position
• New in version 4! pgn-extract.exe and coreinfo.exe are no longer needed. The analyzer of chess games Kreatica is now able to independently convert from one chess notation to another and determine the type of your processor. Microsoft .NET framework 4.6 is still needed, as is the SQlite library, which is included in the distribution
• New in version 4! GUI for settings - no longer need to edit the chessgame-analyzer.exe.config file with a text editor
• New in version 4! Deep analysis - the chess engine will play itself with a subwoofer several games after each move and determine the best move statistically, based on the results of the games played. It takes a powerful computer and a lot of time to use deep analysis. The games played are saved in the database and can be used to analyze other games
• New in version 4! An improved version of the SQlite database compiler is now included in the parser
• New in version 4.1.0.13! SQlite database KingBaseLite.db updated to 01/19. It includes the first 20 moves of KingBaseLite.pgn games played by opponents with an Elo rating of at least 2300 and a rating difference of no more than 200. This database is designed to search for statistically best options in openings
• Attention! SQLite database for version 4.0.0.0 is not compatible with database for version 3.0.0.0! Please download the new database
• New in version 4! A set of chess problems for Arasan engines is supported in PGN and EPD formats - you can compare the abilities of your favorite engines to solve chess puzzles
• Note that the format of the annotation template files has changed. Therefore, template files for version 3.0.0.0 are not compatible with template files for version 4.0.0.0
• New in version 4.1.0.13! Included are the latest Stockfish 10 binaries at the time of this release (developer build of 8 February 2019)
• New in version 3! Super-fast searches for the statistically best choices across a large chess database
• New in version 3! Chess database compiler (chessdb-compiler.exe) to quickly find the statistically best options from chess databases in pgn format
• New in version 3! The ability to download a ready-made compiled database for an ultra-fast (hundreds of times faster than in Chesbase, for example) search for statistically best options (includes more than a million games since 2000, Elo rating of players is not less than 2200, details on the website http: // www. kingbase-chess.net)
• New in version 3! Annotation templates make it possible to annotate games in any language and in any style
• New in version 3! As an example, the program comes with three well-documented templates in Russian and English.
• Professional - practically without words, some options with a symbolic assessment at the end of the option
• Semi-professional - short monotonous comments - used by the program by default
• Amateur - more detailed and varied comments for your taste
• New in version 3! The ability to display multiple options - set by the multipv parameter in the configuration file
• New in version 3! Symbolic evaluation of the position at the end of the variant
• Support for any UCI-compatible chess engines
• Auto tuning of most parameters. Possibility of manual configuration through the configuration file
• Russian and English interfaces
• Automatic (no user intervention) analysis of a large number of batches
• PGN support
• Support for any Windows encoding PGN, ECO files and annotation templates
• New in version 3! Updated binaries (with fixed bugs and improved performance) of the default engine - Stockfish 8, the strongest to date (my build from GitHub dated September 7, 2017
• Setting the time per move, rendering depth, the number of threads and the amount of memory for the engine
• The ability to start analyzing games starting from the starting position from any move
• The ability to analyze games starting from any position
• Configurable priority of the chess engine process
• Classification of games in Russian or English (ECO code, name of the opening and variation)
• Ability to use your own classification file by specifying it as the value of the eco_file parameter
• Support for Fisher Chess (chess 960). Chesbaza reads them correctly, but Scid vs PC gives errors - does not support them.

So, my program is a console application under MS Windows. The results of the analysis of games can be seen on the screen immediately, but it is more convenient to view them in a graphical chess application that can read PGN files, for example, in Chessbase or.

The program comes with a free Stockfish engine, the strongest to date. You can also configure your application to use commercial engines such as Komodo or Houdini (not supplied), as well as any other UCI-compatible chess engine you like.

During batch analysis, the following information is displayed:

• program name, version and developer
• party headers (tags)
• the name of the chess engine and the names of its developers,
• number of threads and engine hash size in MB,
• moves with position assessment, depth of analysis and comments.

Each move is accompanied by a position estimate and calculation depth by default. If the difference between the rating of the best move and the move made in the game is greater than certain thresholds, then a comment is displayed about inaccuracy, error or blunder. The best move and the continuation are also indicated as a variation. At the end of the variation, the estimate of the best stroke, the depth of calculation, the number of nodes in the MU and the speed of analysis in MU / s are reported. If the engine sees a checkmate, then the moves leading to the checkmate will also be shown.

When the difference in the evaluation of the positions of the parties exceeds one pawn, encouraging comments are included. If the move coincides with the best move of the engine, then congratulations are displayed. If the difference in the estimate between the best move and the one made in the game does not exceed 0.2 pawns, then a good move and a better continuation are reported. Incentive annotations differ in tone depending on whether the party wins or loses.

The analysis results are saved in a new pgn file, the name of which consists of the name of the original pgn file and the suffix "-analysed_<движком>"(or" -analyzed_by_ "if the original file name did not contain Russian letters.) This file can be viewed in any graphical chess application that supports the pgn format. Please note that some graphics programs, for example SCID vs PC, cannot open files whose names include not english letters.

After the analysis is complete, the results will automatically be displayed in the default graphical chess application for pgn files, for example, Chessbase, SCID vs PC, or any other pgn format-aware application.

Download, Install, Use and Configure

Programs used by the application chess analyzer "Creatica"

Stockfish 10 (latest developer builds)

The chess analyzer comes with the free Stockfish chess engine, which is by far the strongest. It consists of four binaries:

• stockfish_10_32bit.exe - for the 32-bit version of Windows
• stockfish_10_x64.exe - for the 64-bit version of Windows
• stockfish_10_x64_modern.exe - for a 64-bit version of Windows running on a computer with a processor that supports POPCNT instructions
• stockfish_10_x64_bmi2.exe - for a 64-bit version of Windows running on a computer with a processor that supports BMI2 instructions

By default, the chess analyzer will automatically select the optimal binary file.

Lecture given by the honored trainer of the USSR in Loo on April 17, 2014 at the coaching seminar

Few dispute the necessity and usefulness of the analysis of the games played. This analysis allows one to find committed mistakes, unravel the planned operations of the parties, determine the critical and turning points of a chess battle and, as a result of all this, draw conclusions that help to further improve the chess player's game.

I started doing this kind of business about fifty years ago, when, after graduating from the Moscow Power Engineering Institute, I was forced to retire from playing actively in competitions due to the heavy workload of engineering work in a very serious design bureau. In 1973, I nevertheless returned to the chess world, accepting an offer to become one of the coaches of the USSR national teams.

Well, at the beginning of 1976, fate gave me a wonderful chance - I began to work closely with a little child prodigy from Baku, whom the whole chess world recognized in a couple of years. It was Garry Kasparov.

I will not talk further about the details and method of working with this super-talented young man. Let me just say that the analysis of the games played, both joint and separate, was one of the main forms of his training process.

Clara Kasparova, Garry Kasparov, Vitaly Melik-Karamov and Alexander Nikitin (Vilnius, 1984)

Harry's rise came at the endgame of the pre-computer period of chess, when the quality of analytical work depended only on the chess player's desire to get to the bottom of the truth, sometimes spending a lot of time and effort on it. From an early age, Harry had a great love for chess and a constant desire to learn as much of its secrets as possible. The analysis of various kinds of positions that arose at different stages of this wise game fascinated first the boy and then the young man to the same extent.

The results of our analyzes were recorded by Garik in thick notebooks. I, having managed to create a punch card library at the Central Chess Club (which is on Gogolevsky Boulevard), entered my analyzes into my own punched cards, which became the first attempt to facilitate the collection and storage of the necessary chess information and, most importantly, the quick extraction of individual copies from a large array of punched cards, on which the specific information I needed was stored. In the seventies, the flow of information every year became more and more, and there was a real threat to drown in this flow of new games and analyzes published in books, chess newspapers and magazines, in special issues, etc. The invasion of computers into the world of chess helped us out.

At first, these were primitive game modules, of little use even for the role of sparring partners of a serious chess player. But the whole world was waiting for the appearance of computers capable of solving non-chess problems. Since chess made it possible to study the process of the game from the notes of chess moves, it became a testing ground for working out serious analytical programs intended for use in science, management, military affairs and in many other areas of human activity. Analytical programs for chess were not long to come. True, the first computers only allowed chess professionals not to carry a heavy suitcase full of magazines, informants, analytical notebooks, etc. to competitions, but they were not adapted for their usual work.

My first computer turned out to be the Atari 1040, which I spent in 1987 to purchase. O most of his royalties from the fourth match of the Sevillian Ka. Now I could travel to competitions and training camps with a small suitcase where my computer was packed, in a small hard drive of which all the chess information I needed for the trip was stored. I was pleased with this and took great care of my computer. Back then, computers were unusually expensive for us. So, my colleague, returning from Seville, exchanged the same Atari for brand new Zhiguli. My "Atari" served me faithfully for five years, until in 1992, when I stopped by the editorial office of the Dutch magazine "New in Chess", I bought "at a reasonable price" an advanced computer for that time on the 386 SL processor. It was a real laptop that allowed the first versions of Chess Base and Chess Assistant to work. True, his weak memory - 1.0 megabytes of RAM - did not allow thinking about any advanced forms of work, and the memory of a 40 megabyte hard drive made it possible to use it only as a repository of valuable chess information I had selected. I quickly lost the habit of writing on paper; I did all the comments of the games and the opening analyzes on a computer and automatically saved them in its memory. This went on for the same five years, until the parameters of my computer friend began to noticeably inferior to the new, more powerful and faster-firing brothers. The coaching problems that I had to solve became more and more difficult, my chess information bank required moving to a new, more spacious room, and I had to change the computer.

Somehow it is generally accepted that computers become obsolete very quickly, and their useful life is about two years. I have been quietly working with my silicone assistants for five years, I quickly get used to them, I recognize their features. They become my friends, with whom it is a pity to part. So, if your chess problems don't get complicated, then don't be in a hurry to part with aging computers. No wonder they say that an old friend is better than two new ones.

For the next five years, I had a Pentium 266 computer that could run the serious Chess Base 7.0 and Fritz 5.0 programs. Their use allowed one to feel more confident when analyzing opening schemes. True, the assessments given by computers were sometimes very controversial, and I immediately made it a rule not to follow their lead, but to rely on my understanding of the position.

Honored Trainer of the USSR, FIDE Senior Trainer, International Master Alexander Sergeevich Nikitin

For two years now I have been closely friends with the ASUS laptop, the heart of which is a dual-core Intel (R) Core TM i3 CPU, which has a clock frequency quite sufficient for conducting chess research (2.4 megahertz); the capacity of the hard disk (40 gigabytes) is more than sufficient. I am quite pleased with his work: both in terms of the good accuracy of his estimates and the time it takes to get them. Now there are computers that can get the same results twice as fast, but that doesn't bother me, I don't like to rush my friend.

I must say that my experience with the latest analytical programs such as Houdini 4, Stockfish 4, Komodo 5 has led to conclusions that you should think about.

1. No computer can enhance your game. He can warn against gross errors in the analysis and at the end of it (you determine the termination of the analysis, again based on your understanding of the position), give a certain amount of information with your purely formal numerical estimates (there are always several of them), which you should check based on your understanding of the position and, most importantly, by comparing it with your “human” assessment, make the final choice.

2. The leader in the analysis should be a person. We must firmly understand that a computer is a conscientious bookkeeper, and you are the thinker and the main one in the search for chess truth.

3. I find it funny to see young chess players playing as a candidate master, but already having powerful computers with quad-core processors. For them it is like playing games with crystal or gold chess instead of ordinary wooden figures. On such computers it is good to spend time on complex games like "Star Wars" and the like, but this, as they say, is a different song. To solve chess problems, dual-core processors are quite enough. Better to buy good chess books with the money saved.

Next, I will try to simulate the process of analyzing a chess game using a computer. For this I took the party of the old masters, not at all long, not infallible, but without gross blunders. It had already been analyzed by Grandmaster Nunn 6 years ago, and I wanted to see if my more powerful computer would help me find something new in covering the events that took place in this interesting and instructive game. Note that during the lecture I, of course, did not show variations longer than 5-6 moves; they are given below for self-analysis by trainers and students.

Young listeners in Loo

Rudolf Spielmann - Arnold Denker

French Defense C06

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ndf3 Qb6 8.Ne2 cxd4 9.cxd4 Bb4 +

Some players can't wait to start a fight without prior maneuvers. True, for most of them, the rating barely crawls beyond 2100 - for this it is enough to look at a sample of parties from the Megabase. In my comments, I use examples of the game of stronger chess players who are able to penetrate the understanding of the position, in computer language, on b O greater depth and in less time.

The loss of castling here cannot have serious consequences, since the position in the center is stable. In the meantime, it is stable, the e5-pawn provides White with a spatial advantage, and for Black the inconvenience associated with the tightness in his own house, part of which is shot by the enemy. I would like to somehow remove this pawn, but not very decisive ones are afraid of opening the game and threats to their own king. This is how a conflict of interests immediately begins and the chess Maidan appears.

Serious players prefer to gain a small positional advantage, but not lose castling. 10.Bd2 (+0,10) Bxd2 + 11.Qxd2 Qb4 12.Rc1 Qxd2 + 13.Kxd2 Nb6 14.b3 Ke7 15.h4 Bd7 16.Rh3 Nb4 17.Bb1 a5 18.a3 + / =, Keres - Flores, 1939.

10...0-0?! (+1,15)

Rudolf Spielman, in his scanty comments, gave the black king a castling with the only question mark and called this natural move a decisive mistake, allowing the standard bishop sacrifice on h7. Indeed, he was not mistaken when speaking of a mistake; there are moves that are better than what he did. Black's castling at the moment is a move in which there is a lot of provocation, since the more or less experienced player's eyes immediately light up at the sight of the h7 pawn. "To beat or not to beat?" - an ancient question immediately arises.

Let's take a look at computers first. My computer assistants - the cocky Stockfish 4 and the solid Komodo 5, as I expected, were not united in their rapid assessment of the consequences of a seductive elephant sacrifice. Stockfish decided to sacrifice instantly (11.Bxh7 +), immediately giving her powerful support at "+1.21". Komodo did not notice this move at all, in comparison with the solid fortifying 11.Be3 and two similar moves given to me to choose from. I decided to give them time to work. Only after 15 minutes, having reached the calculation depth of 25 half moves, Komodo deigned to see the bishop sacrifice and its benefits, immediately placing the move on the first line with a score of “+0.79”. At the same time, he indicated variant evidence that is more convincing than that of his competitor Stockfish. Then I decided to see at what depth of calculation the computers will stop moving on. After an hour of work, they sharply slowed down the speed of their calculations, and there was no point in continuing to operate them further. I had to record the following results of their work: "Stockfish 4" reached a depth of 31 half moves and retained the same enthusiastic attitude towards the bishop sacrifice when evaluating the move of the second line (11.а3), which is also quite high (+ 1.05). Komodo 5 was more thoughtful. He reached a calculation depth of 26 half moves and retained a respectful attitude towards the bishop sacrifice, leaving it on the first line (+0.88), far from the minor (11.Be3 with a score of +0.31). At the same time, it is worth noting that the best "human" move found by Nunn (11.Nf4) has never received the attention of accounting analysts.

Having learned the opinion of the computer, we will now continue our purely chess analysis. The main opening idea of ​​the French Defense is to undermine White's pawn fortifications in the center. Since the undermining of the d4-pawn has been successfully repelled, Black must rush to undermine the e5-pawn, which unpleasantly hinders the movement of Black's pieces. This goal is served by the advancement of the f7-f6 pawn, which must be carried out as quickly as possible.

1) 10 ... f5?(+0.90) A fundamental error that does not require a variant proof. Black refuses to undermine the pawn center and must now endure ordeals in a cramped position without counterplay. Hands make the first moves of a winning plan, giving the head a rest: 11.h4 0-0 12.Rh3 h6 13.Rg3 Kh8 14.Be3.

The computers watching my moves here give a harsh assessment of Black's opening strategy: "+2.04 or + -". I agree and stop further analysis.

2) 10 ... f6 (0.56)

Let's look again at how “Stockfish4” works: 1 minute - the depth of calculation is 20 half moves, the position is estimated at “+0.58”; 2 minutes - 22 half moves and "+0.08"; 6 minutes - 26 half moves and a score of "0.00".

11.Nf4 (11.exf6 (-0.10) Nxf6 12.Bf4 0-0 13.Qb1 Be7 14.a3 Bd7 =) 11 ... fxe5 (11 ... Ndxe5 ?! 12.dxe5 fxe5 13.Nh5 0- 0 14.Be3 Qd8 15.Ng3 h6 16.h4 Bd6 17.Rh3 e4 18.Nxe4 dxe4 19.Bxe4 +/-) 12.Nxe6 !? g6 (Looks extremely suspicious, but nothing better is seen) 13.dxe5 Ndxe5 14.Be3 Qa5 15.Nxe5 Nxe5 White seems to have done everything right, but their hopes for an advantage seem to be dying. 16.a3 (16.Nd4 0-0 17.Be2 Nc4 =) 16 ... Bxe6 17.axb4 Qxb4 18.Bd4 Bg4! 19.Qa4 + Qxa4 20.Rxa4 Rc8 21.Bb5 + Nd7 22.Bc3 a6 23.Bxa6 bxa6 24.Rxg4 0-0 25.Rd4 Nf6 26.f3 Ne4 =.

3) 10 ... Be7!(0.00) The bishop has done its job - the bishop can go closer to the king. 11.a3 f6! ( As an example of an unsuccessful opening for Black, I cite a fragment of the game of two great classics who played this game at the end of their chess career. For some reason, Black immediately went into a dull passiveness and died without a murmur. 11 ... Nf8? 12.b4 Bd7 13.Be3 Nd8 14.Nc3 a5 15.Na4 Qa7 16.b5 b6 + - (Alekhin - Capablanca, 1938) 17.h4! f5 18.Rh3 h6 19.Rg3 + -) 12.Nf4 fxe5 13.Nxe6 Bf6. The opening development is suddenly interrupted by the start of a fight in the center of the board. 14.Qe2 e4 15.Bf4 Nde5! 16.dxe5 Bxe6 17.exf6 0-0! 18.Ng5 Rxf6 19.Nxe6 exd3.

On this acute position, the check of the work of the accountant "Stockfish4" in a single-processor stationary computer was started. After one minute, the engine reached a calculation depth of 18 half-moves; ten minutes later he was at a depth of 27 half-moves with an estimate of the move 20.Qg4 "+0.14". After another 20 minutes, he stopped at a depth of 31 half-pass with the estimate of the same move "0.00".

20.Qg4 Rg6 21.Ng5 Qxb2 22.Re1 d2. Computers give the mark "=" here. But for me the position is not so clear - it is too difficult to understand what is happening here, and I rate it as “unclear”. However, if we continue the variation - 23.Rd1 h6 24.h4 hxg5 25.hxg5 Re8 26.Kg1 Qc2 27.Rxd2 Re1 + 28.Kh2 Ne5 29.Qh3 Rxh1 + 30.Kxh1 Qe4 31.Qc8 + Kh7 32.Qh3 +, then we get a perpetual check.

11.Bxh7 + (+1.15)

White is in a hurry, maybe it's not in vain. After all, the next move one of the black pawns - f7 or h7 can go to the 6th row, and then the possibility of sacrificing the bishop will become irrelevant. Of course, the hand tries to "slap" on h7, after which the white queen bursts into the fortress, where the enemy king is hiding, and he has to flee. It was this circumstance that allowed the great lover to attack to consider the sacrifice of the elephant justified, because he believed in his ability to conduct an attack and believed that “further attacking opportunities will be found automatically. After sacrificing an elephant, I was convinced that my attack should somehow lead to victory. "

However, not all so simple. Black's position is unpleasant because his pieces are in some kind of disorder, making it difficult to organize counterplay. Taking advantage of this, White can look for a way to strengthen the attacking group. And then it is not difficult to pay attention to the leap of the knight e2.

11.Nf4! (+0.90). This calm strengthening of the attacking potential was found by Grandmaster Nunn, who did not believe in the effectiveness of the white bishop sacrifice, a piece that, by the way, is very useful in attacking the king. If the attack drowns, then the absence of a lookout for the white squares can create serious problems for them.

a) 11 ... f6 12.Nxe6 fxe5 ( 12 ... Re8 13.Nf4 fxe5 14.Nxd5 + -) 13.dxe5 Ndxe5 14.Bxh7 + Kxh7 15.Nxf8 + Bxf8 16.Nxe5 Nxe5 17.Qh5 + Kg8 18.Qxe5 + -;

b) 11 ... h6 12.Bb1 Re8 13.Kg1 Nf8 14.h4 Qc7 15.Rh3 Bd7 16.Rg3 Ne7 17.Nh5 Nfg6 18.Nxg7 Kxg7 19.h5 Rec8 20.Bf4 + -;

with) 11 ... Be7 12.h4 h6 13.Rh3 Re8 14.a3 Bf8 15.Rg3 Ne7 16.Kg1 a5 17.Ne1 Nf5 18.Bxf5 exf5 19.Nxd5 Qc6 20.Nf4 + -.

I "showed" Nunn's move to my bookkeeper, when, after 12 minutes of calculation work, he did not display it on the monitor, and the favorite was the move made by Spielmann, with an estimate reaching "+1.27". The computer reacted positively to such a "kick", but without enthusiasm, giving an assessment of "+0.94" after 8 minutes of calculation at a depth of 25 half-passes.

11 ... Kxh7 12.Ng5 + Kg8

The game ends instantly in case of the king's sortie - 12 ... Kg6 ?? 13.Qd3 + f5 14.Nf4 +! Kxg5 15.Qg3 + Kh6 18.Qg6 #.

13.Qd3! (+1.03) Re8 14.Qh7 + Kf8

The first phase of White's attack is over. Now they have to choose the best from several very seductive sequels. There is practically no one to defend the black king, the only transit point - the e7-square is a saving loophole for the further flight of the monarch, if he succeeds. On the other hand, so far only two white pieces are involved in the attack. But this pair is good only for mating the king in the area of ​​the f7-square. White solves the problem of this point, but not in the best way.

15.Qh8 +?(-0.16)

This is not to say that this malfunction is obvious. However, this is indeed a glitch. The white queen is doing the wrong thing. Carried away by the pursuit, he drives the enemy king from the dangerous zone to a relatively safe temporary shelter on d8, from where a path leads to a safer shelter on b8. As a reward, he will get two unfortunate kingside pawns and freeing the road for the white passed pawn to hit the queen.

However, further we will see the discrepancy in the winner's statement: "The idea that every sacrifice should be calculated as accurately as possible is fundamentally wrong. An attack requires only belief in position (?) And in yourself." with the conclusions of a careful analysis, which proves that here White missed two much more effective attack continuations.

First of all, it should be noted that an attempt to immediately win back a piece given up for an attack with 15 a3 reveals a defect in White's position - a weakening of the d4-pawn. This circumstance can be used by Black with great advantage - 15… Nxd4! 16.axb4 Qb5 !, and after the forced exchange of queens, White is left without a pawn and without initiative.

Having discussed the bad opportunity, now let's talk about the good ones.

1) 15.Qh5 !? The winner, very pleased with the attack brought to victory, does not even mention another variation of the scenario he invented, when White gets to the f7-pawn one move earlier. This time saving sharply strengthens the attack, making it irresistible, for example: 15 ... g6 (+2.20) 16.Qh7 Ke7 (16 ... Nd8 17.Ne4 !! + -) 17.Qxf7 + Kd8 18.Nxe6 + Rxe6 19. Qxe6 Qb5 20.Be3 + - or 15 ... Nd8 (1.09) 16.a3 Qa6 17.Be3 Ke7 18.Rc1 Ba5 19.Qh7! Rf8 20.h4! Nc6 21.Qxg7 Bb6 22.Ke1! Ke8 23.Rh3! + - Qd3 24.h5 Bxd4 25.Bxd4 + -.

2) 15.Nf3! (+1.27). The knight, jumping back, not only strengthened the defense of the central pawn, it, most importantly, gave way to the bishop, and his appearance on the g5-square threatens to end the battle immediately.

Computers do not immediately realize the power of this maneuver, and for about half a minute I see their indignation. Their favorite (15.Qh5) was displaced from the first line only at the calculation depth of 25 half moves, and immediately with the estimate of the knight's jump "+1.90", and after calculating on 27 half moves, the estimate reached "+2.16".

Even Nunn did not see such a combination of the defense of the d4-pawn and the attack, with the involvement of the dark-squared bishop. 15 ... f6 16.Bh6! Ke7 17.Qxg7 + Kd8 18.exf6 Bf8 19.Qg6 Bxh6 20.Qxh6 Qxb2 21.Re1 Kc7 22.f7 Re7 (22 ... Rf8 23.Ng5 Nd8 24.h4 b6 25.Nf4 Ba6 + 26.Kg1 Kb7 27.Nfxe6 Nxe6 28.Qxe6 + -) 23.f8Q Nxf8 24.Qxf8 b6 25.Kg1 Kb7 26.h4 e5 27.Qf6 Re6 28.Qg7 + Re7 29.Qg5 exd4 30.Nfxd4 Rd7 31.Qf6 + -

15... Ke7 16.Qxg7 (0.00) 16 ...Kd8 (+0.30)

Black should have protected the pawn: 16… Rf8 17.Nxe6! “While my opponent was pondering his move, I delved deeply into the position and decided that this sacrifice would win right away” R. Shpilman. It is a pity that the grandmaster did not provide a variant proof of deep penetration. Nunn, however, somehow casually notes that the winner simply did not bother about calculating the options and relied entirely on his intuition. But in vain ... Something won’t be seen straightaway, perhaps only in case of 17 ... Kxe6? 18.Nf4 + Ke7 Nxd5 +. Only what is indicated by computers leads to unsteady equality 17 … Ke8 18.Nxf8 Nxf8 19.Be3 Ng6 20.Qh7 Bf5. The bookkeepers are muttering about White's little initiative, and I agree with them.

17.Qxf7? (-1.11)

The coming lull is conducive to reflection. I would like to look at the position “humanly”, discarding the sheets with computer calculations. Something is not quite right, or maybe something completely wrong happened for White. The checkmate game has faded, and now the most important thing for them is to push the pawn as far as possible, but where?

Nann managed to find the strengthening of White's attack using the old method. He considered this position as the first intermediate result of the bishop sacrifice on h7. Then a legitimate question arose: "What did White achieve in these six moves?" Yes, they received a sufficient pawn equivalent for the sacrificed bishop. But it was not the miserable pawns that were their target when they launched the attack. They drove the king to the center, where he found himself under the protection of the black pieces already standing there. Well, what of this? Black can easily repel the threat of capturing the e6-pawn, at least by placing the knight on f8, and in its place bring the bishop, further strengthening the king's defense. It is not hard to understand that the two white pieces, who "gouged" the royal fortress, need reinforcements to continue the offensive. But it takes time to bring the reserves into the battle (about 3-4 moves), and in this short time period Black will have time to bring the rook to c8, to hide the king on b8, and will be ready to start his game. It turns out that White's achievements in the attack are not so great. In a practical game, these general considerations and arguments are quite enough to call into question the correctness of the bishop sacrifice. And this made the English grandmaster start looking for a strengthening for White, returning to the position that arose after ten moves. So he found the move 11.Nf4!

Let's go back to the position in the last diagram. Its assessment is completely unclear. White has only to strengthen by way of 17.Be3 (+0.30) Be7 18.b3, and then an impetuous play on the opposite course begins: 18 ... a5 19.h4 a4 20.b4! Qxb4 21.Nxf7 + Kc7 22.Rc1. The white checkpoint looks intimidating, and many would go over to the white side, but computers are in their element here. They somehow manage to save Black with 22 ... Nb6, and even with 22 ... b6. The purely illustrative variants given below are excellent food for those who like to prove the generally accepted chess axiom "any long variant contains an error."

By the way, this everyday statement is saturated with tears of many chess analysts who were carried away by lengthy analytical studies. Practitioners want to know how long the options should be, when the probability of error should be high, and what should be considered an error in this case. As for the length of the variation, again G. Kasparov believes that “in difficult positions, the tree of variations (note, the“ tree ”, not just the trunk) is usually traced (by him!) To a depth of up to ten half-passes, which is a fairly reliable depth ... In a practical game, it is important to understand when to stop the settlement work. Usually this moment comes when you come to a definite assessment of the position (again, based on your chess strength), or when there is no time to continue the calculation. "

Well, a mistake in the variant, due to which all the calculation work turns out to be a waste of time, may not necessarily be a rough view of the opponent's strong response, but also the presence of a couple of lateral branches from the trunk, directing the game in paths with completely unclear consequences. How many times amateurs have bought this to follow the computer road (at least to save time). Even such a chess monster as V.L. Korchnoi said that he didn’t like to analyze with a computer, as it was leading him along for some time, and then suddenly he changed his assessment of the position, and he had to start all over again.

22 ... Nb6 (22 ... b6 23.Kg1 (23.Qg6 Nf8 24.Qc2 Bd7 25.Bg5 Qc4 26.Qxc4 dxc4 27.Rxc4 b5 28.Rc1 b4 29.Bxe7 Rxe7 30.Nd6 Bc8 31.Rh3 Ba6 32.h5 Rg7 33.h6 Rh7 34.g4 Ng6 35.Nc4 b3 36.axb3 axb3 37.Rxb3 Rxh6і) 23 ... Ba6 24.Nf4 Rac8 25.Qh6 Nf8 (25 ... Kb8 26.Qxe6 Nf8 27 .Qxd5 Na5 28.Rxc8 + Rxc8 29.Nd6 Bxd6 30.Qxd6 + Qxd6 31.exd6 Rc2) 26.Nxd5 + exd5 27.Rxc6 + Kb7 28.Nd6 + Bxd6 29.Rxd6 Bc4 30.RhR3 Bxa2 31.Rh3. Bd2 Qb1 + 34.Kh2 Bc4 =) 23.Nd6 Bd7 24.Nxe8 + Rxe8 25.h5 Nc4 26.h6 Nxe3 + 27.fxe3 Rf8 + 28.Kg1 Qd2 29.Rh3 Qxe2 30.h7 Re8 31.Kh2 QxQx R 32.h7. Rxh8 Qa3 34.Rc2 Kb6 35.Ra8 Qxe3 36.Rxc6 + Bxc6 37.Qxe7 Qxd4 38.Qxe6 (38.Qd8 +? Kb5 39.Qa5 + Kc4 - +) 38 ... Qh4 + 39.Qh3 Qxh3 + 40.gxh4 Kc b5 42.Rg8 a3 43.Rg7 + Kb6 44.h5 a2 45.Rg1 b4 46.h6 b3 47.h7 b2 48.h8Q b1Q 49.Qd8 + Ka6 50.Qc8 + Kb6 =.

It should be noted that here both analytical modules will offer a choice of the moves 17.а3, 17.Be3, 17.h4 and 17.Nxf7 + (=) for an insufficiently experienced chess player, and this will not be an easy choice.

17 ... Nf8 (-0.42)

Many protein individuals, including myself, would have made this normal fortifying move in order to quickly bring the position of their pieces into a form familiar to the eye and mind through Bd7, Rc8 and Kd8-c7-b8. However, computers intervene again, advising to take a closer look at counterplay on white squares, where their light-squared bishop, which has no opponent, can play an important role.

Meticulous bookkeepers offer an elegant solution for Black 17 ... Qa6 !? (-1.11) and ask the supporters of the white army to refute their options:

a) 18.Nf3 Be7 19.Be3 (19.Qxe6 Nf6 20.Qf7 Rf8 21.Qg7 Rg8 22.Qh6 Ne4 23.Ne1 Kc7 24.Qe3 Bg4 25.Qd3 Bxe2 + 26.Qxe2 Qxe2 + 27.Kxe2 Nxd4 + 28.Kf1 Nc6 ) 19 ... Nb6 20.b3 Bd7 21.h4 Nb4 22.a4 Rc8 23.Rd1 Rc2 - / + and

b) 18.Qf4 Qd3 19.Be3 Nb6 (19 ... b6 !? 20.a3 Ba6 21.axb4 Qxe2 + 22.Kg1 Kc7 23.h4 Re7 24.Qf3 Qxf3 25.Nxf3 Kb7 26.h5 Nxb4 27.Ra3 Rg8- / +) 20.Qh4 Re7 21.a3 Bd2 22.Bxd2 (22.Rd1? Qc2! - +) 22 ... Qxd2 23.b3 Qb2 24.Rc1 Qxb3 25.Qf4 Nc4 26.h4 Qb2 27.h5 Bd7 28. h6 Kc7 29.h7 Rh8 30.Rh3 Kb8 - / +.

It looks like Spielmann's last move gives Black more opportunities in the fight for the initiative.

18.h4 Bd7 (-0.42)

19.Be3 (-0.85).

Seemingly a useful fortifying move, but it had to be made one move later, then White managed to save an important tempo that allowed him to consolidate the position a little: 19.h5 Qa6! 20.Be3! Kc7 21.a3 Rac8. Although the position still remained more promising for Black: 22.Rd1 Nd8 23.Qf3 Be7 24.h6 Kb8 25.h7 Ng6 = / +.

19 ... Rc8? (0.00)

You can't tell right away that this is a mistake, but in fact Black is making a move that is as natural, so untimely in this situation, when the rapid advance of White's passed pawn had to be opposed by an equally rapid deployment of active counterplay. In this game, the black player was not strong in understanding the position, and his mistakes should be tolerated. The grandmaster, in my opinion, was completely confident that everything was going according to plan, and therefore at some moments he relaxed his vigilance, being sure that everything would be fine. Analysis proves that with the rook move Black misses b O the most part of the big advantage presented to them, which they did not deserve and which was achieved by the immediate start of counter-operation on the queenside.

19 ... Be7! (-0.95) This is both strengthening of the king's defense and an attack on the b2-pawn. It is already difficult for White to give good advice. 20.h5 (20.b3 Qa6! 21.h5 Nb4! 22.Rc1 (22.h6 Nc2 23.Rc1 Rc8 24.Qf4 Bb5 25.Kg1 Nxe3 26.Rxc8 + Kxc8 27.Nc3 Bxg5 28.Qxg5 Nf5 29.Nxb5 Qxb5 30.h7 Nxh7 31.Rxh7 Nxd4 32.Qg7 Kb8 - +) 22 ... Nxa2 23.Ra1 Rc8 24.h6 Rc2 25.Kg1 Rxe2 26.h7 Nxh7 27.Nxh7 Qa5 28.Rh3 Qc3 29.Rf1 Re1 30. Rxe1 Qxe1 + 31.Kh2 Nc3 32.Qg7 Ne2 33.f4 Qb4 34.Nf6 Nxd4 35.Nxe8 Nf5 36.Qf7 Nxe3 37.Nd6 Nf5 - +) 20 ... Qxb2 21.Rc1 Rc8! (Now this move is quite appropriate, because 22 ... Nxd4! 23.Rxc8 + Kxc8 24.Nxd4 Qb1 + 25.Ke2 Qxh1 solves the matter on 22.h7). It remains to check only 22.Qg7, and then a pure illustration: a) 22 ... Nxd4 ?? 23.Nf7 #; b) 22 ... Nxe5 23.Qxe5 (23.dxe5? Bb5 - +) 23 ... Bb5 24.Re1 Rc2 25.Kg1 Nd7 26.Qxe6 Rxe2 27.Rxe2 Qxe2 28.Nf7 + Kc8 29.h6 Qd1 + 30.Kh2 Qh5 + 31.Kg1 =; c) 22… Kc7 23.h6 Kb8 24.h7 Nxh7 25.Nxh7 Nxd4 26.Rxc8 + Kxc8 27.Nxd4 Qa1 + 28.Ke2 Qxh1 29.Nf6 Ba4 30.Nb3 Bb5 + 31.Kf3 Bxf6 32.exf6 Qh3 + 33.Kh8 ...

20.h5 Ne7.

Black does not think about activity, but drives his pieces closer to the king. This is now called "tight" play. A serious battle with three results flared up after 20 ... Qa6 21.h6 Ne7. However, with the right defense, everything ended in peace: 22.h7 Nxh7 23.Nxh7 Rc2 24.Nf6 Qxe2 + 25.Kg1 Bd2 26.Bxd2 Qxd2 27.Rf1 Rc1 28.g3 Rxf1 + 29.Kxf1 Qxd4 30.Nxe8 Bxe8 31.Qxe6 Rh8 Qc4 + 32.Kg1 Qc6 - / +) 31 ... Qd3 + 32.Kg1 Qb1 + 33.Kg2 Qe4 + 34.Kh2 Nf5 35.Rc1 Bc6 36.Kh3 d4 37.Qg8 + Kc7 38.Qf7 + =.

21.Nf4 (0.00)

White is no longer in danger of losing. However, they hardly thought about this joyful moment and, without noticing the dangers that threatened them, continued to play for victory, introducing reserves into the battle. Equality after 21.h6 Qa6 22.h7 Nxh7 23.Nxh7 Rc2 has already been considered. The sharp struggle ended with equality after 21.Kg1 Nf5 22.h6 Be7 23.h7 Nxh7 24.Rxh7 Rf8 25.Qh5 Qxb2 26.Rd1 Nxe3 27.fxe3 Qa3 28.Kh2 Qxe3 29.Nf7 + Kc7 30.Rc1 + Kb8.

21... Nf5 22.h6Nxe3 + 23.fxe3 (0.00)

23 ... Bb5 + ?? (+3.98)

So help arrived in time for the whites. The difference in class had an effect, especially since Black was in time trouble. They make, indeed, a decisive mistake at a time when the outcome of the chaotic battle continued to remain unclear. Well, with such a set of misses, the one who makes the last mistake loses.

After 23 ... Be7 (0.00) 24.h7 Nxh7 25.Ngxe6 + Bxe6 26.Nxe6 + Kd7 27.Nf4 Qb5 + 28.Kg1 Ng5 it was impossible to talk about anyone's advantage in a position full of life: 29.a4 Qxb2 30.Qxd5 + Kc7 31.Qa2 Qxa2 32.Rxa2 Kd7 33.Kf2 Rc4 34.Ke2 Rec8 =.

Now you can admire the incomparable art of attacking the famous luminary of the past. And I remember the great magician Mikhail Tal and his attacks - these were miracles!

24.Kg1 Rc7 25.h7 Rxf7 26.Nxf7 + Kc8 27.h8Q

It's time for Black to resign, which he did after a dozen completely unnecessary moves.

So, what should you remember after watching this interesting and instructive game?

1. The opening variation with 10.Kf1 is quite suitable for those who like complications, and for both colors. If it is planned to be included in the combat opening repertoire, it is worth writing down the "correct" continuation of the game after White's 10th move.

2. If you are going to donate serious material, then the decision should be made only after calculating the necessary options to an acceptable depth, which depends on the practical strength of the player.

3. "If you are unable to quickly find an excuse for the intended victim behind the game, removing all the ambiguities, then you should look for another, more reliable continuation that does not worsen the situation." (Nunn). It will be practical if, having seen the idea of ​​the victim, before calculating it, you first find this alternate continuation.

4. Try to keep the situation under control and notice the slightest changes in the characteristics of the position after each move, both your own and, especially, someone else's. They can force you to make adjustments to your choice of move.

5. When analyzing a game, respect the work of the computer, which protects you from blunders. But remember that the main thing in analytical work is the person, that is, you. And you, only you, will have to make the final choice of the move. And it will not necessarily be a computer move of the first line.

6. First, you should check on the computer the move that you think is the best, based on your understanding of position and play style, and then compare it with the best choice of computer. Then make your final choice.

7. Do not force the computer to advise you at a blitz pace, as it may give you the wrong move. In principled positions, let the computer think for at least 3 minutes on each move. Always try to start such an analysis by assessing the position based on general considerations and your positional understanding.

8. Always try to start computer analysis of any position, with its assessment from general considerations and because of your positional understanding. No analytical program can teach you to understand a position. She will only give you material for thought. No computer, even the most powerful one, will enhance your game if you have a poor understanding of position.

Only good books will teach you chess tricks. But this is a special topic.

Alexander Nikitin conducts classes at the Chess Hopes of Russia school in the Ognikovo boarding house

Photos by B. Dolmatovsky, V. Barsky and E. Kublashvili

Introduction This is a new article about computer chess, in which we will consider a new version of the most popular chess program Chessmaster 9000, first localized in our country, and look through it as through the prism of the latest chess and computer events.

First, let's take a look at the localized Chessmaster 9000. This is probably the most popular chess program in the world and in our country. In principle, it is understandable why Chessmaster games have always attracted chess fans. Often, especially in the past, chess programs slipped to two extremes: either there was a powerful chess engine and a not very friendly boring interface, or, on the contrary, a nice interface, beautiful sets of pieces, but the actual chess filling was weak. Chessmaster has always combined both (both a strong chess program and a user-friendly interface with a variety of sets of pieces and boards). Thanks to the harmonious combination of form and content, it won its immense popularity.

After installing version 9000, a read-me file immediately appears, and the following message immediately catches the eye: if the program starts to malfunction and displays error messages, check that the latest versions of video drivers are installed in the system. What does the chess program and video drivers have to do with it? Does the new version really use the pixel or vertex processors of the new video accelerators for calculating variations, and for the fastest search for positions in the database, chess games are recorded in textures? No, it's just that now the drawing of three-dimensional chessboards and figures has been replenished with options for bump mapping, reflections and shadows. Now in Chessmaster, shadows are drawn no worse than in Doom III, it's time to replenish the video card reviews with tests in this program too.

But is this the only difference between the new version and the previous games in the series? Yes, there are new beautiful boards, new sets of figures. For people who love chess, collect various sets of chess pieces, the new version will be very interesting. You can directly take screenshots, print on a laser printer and put in a sideboard. But what can fans of the game itself expect? Almost everything has undergone small but noticeable improvements.

Here they are, reflections and shadows. And more - many sets of shapes

What makes Chessmaster especially valuable? It can be called rather not a chess program, the term "chess simulator" is more appropriate. The interface is not as convenient for professional analysis of games and openings as, for example, the interface of the well-known chess program Fritz and other programs of the ChessBase company, which produces computer databases of chess games for highly qualified chess players. On this basis, a stupid delusion appeared that Chessmaster itself is inferior in a chess sense to other programs, such as Fritz. Supposedly, they are used by professionals, which means that they play better. This is not so, we will return to the specifics of the program's chess engine, but for now let's see what is offered to the average user.

Chessmaster 9000

The Chessmaster developers have focused on meeting the needs of the casual chess enthusiast. Non-professionals are not interested in playing with chess programs proper on modern powerful computers. Calculate - and everything will end there. The game with the computer will turn into a continuous walking, in the end, using the brute-force method, it will be possible to find a winning game and beat the computer as many times as you like in this opening variation. But Chessmaster invites the user to play fairly, without reversing moves, with computer characters simulating players of a certain strength. Each computer player has a rating that should roughly correspond to the rating that he would receive in real competitions. The developers focused on creating diverse characters and determining their rating as accurately as possible. This is not an easy task at all, because the strength of the game also depends on the time control, and you can choose it as you like, you can play both blitz and classical time control.

Chessmaster measures CPU performance and adjusts the rating of its players based on it. The developers of the program found out that when playing with a computer, amateurs are greatly annoyed by the fact that the computer responds very quickly, almost instantly, if you give it a few seconds to think it over. And at the same time he plays quite strongly, then the person also tries to play quickly, and immediately misses something. And if you put a lot of time on the computer to think, then, on the one hand, it will get tired of waiting, and on the other hand, it will play very hard. So the characters in Chessmaster think like humans, according to the established controls, but can play rather poorly.

So, you can play not only with the super-strong Chessmaster chess engine that has the practical power of playing at the grandmaster level, but also with simulated amateurs with different ratings. You can simply play separate games with a selected character, or create your own tournament, and recruit opponents of players of various strengths. And depending on the results, the program will calculate your rating, like that of professional chess players.

It turns out to be an analogue of a chess club or an Internet gaming zone. It is even better than when playing on the Internet, because in a densely populated gaming zone, they play on the Internet mainly with control of 3 minutes per game, sometimes plus 1 second per move. Or even a minute per game. Otherwise, the temptation to use the help of a computer is very strong, then the game turns into a different plane. But a game with such minimal control cannot be called chess, since the time factor plays a huge role. Even with an extra piece in an absolutely won position, it is quite possible simply not to have time to checkmate. Moves have not only chess power, but also the time it takes to make that move. For example, a rook move across the entire board is rather long, but a king move to an adjacent square is fast. If you have just moved this piece, then its next move will be shorter than the move of another piece, since you do not need to move the mouse.

So if you do not want to go to play in a chess club, or it is closed, or in one way or another you are deprived of the opportunity to find a suitable opponent for yourself, you can use a chess simulator.

Of course, then the developers should try very hard to make the personalities different from each other, somehow simulate the behavior of people, and not just be weakened copies of the same chess engine. And so the developers are trying, from version to version, improving the character of the characters and adding new ones. So if you outplayed everyone from the previous part, you can take on the new one and check if your opponents have changed.

The list of players is opened by a monkey in a multi-colored top hat, making random moves and having a rating of 1. And so on, up to a professional level, like stars in the Milky Way - players are sometimes denser, sometimes less often they cover the range of ratings. Sometimes there are colorful personalities. In general, each player has his own opening repertoire, corresponding to his style and manner of playing. By the way, an experienced amateur immediately has an idea: what if you beat a character once, catch him on the opening variation, and then repeat this game all the time? Naturally, the developers took this opportunity into account: firstly, the computer player does not always make the same move in the same position. If there are several moves with approximately the same score, there is an element of randomness in the choice of move. Secondly, the computer player remembers his defeats and turns away from the opening options that led to the loss.

Returning to the characters ... There are ordinary mid-level amateurs who all the time make middle moves, there are drunken grandmasters, they play very strong almost all the time, but sometimes they yawn. In the previous version, there was such a player, he had a craving for rooks (well, not for bishops or knights), and he even gave up queen for rook and a few pawns. But it was still hard to win against him, because he was very good at calculating the options. And when you play with him, you always wait for him to give up queen for rook, and the realization will begin. Sometimes you draw a rook on purpose for this. This version has an unusual player, a natural blitz player, makes moves instantly, but not always good ones. However, it provokes the player to play quickly too, which, of course, is fraught.

In general, the characters are quite diverse. Until you study them all, it is interesting to tinker with them. By the way, each computer player has a portrait and a short biography with a text description of the style of the game. All this has been translated into Russian, somewhat unusual if you use the English versions all the time.

What I liked Chessmaster all the time for is its honest, no-trick chess engine. All the parameters that the computer takes into account are visible at a glance. And so, including their variation, various computer characters are obtained. By the way, you see, the base of the endgame has been added. And what is this parameter, selective search? You will not find its description in the documentation, you have to look for old versions, when the developers were still writing the documentation. This parameter determines how quickly the program will discard low-promising options. If you set it to the minimum, then the program will be bad at calculating the tactics, because after a temporary sacrifice it will quickly discard this option and will not be able to reach the return of the material. And if you set the maximum value, then the program will always count a lot of nonsense, completely incorrect sacrifices, and work slowly, since it will not discard bad options in time

In this case, the classical material ratio has been established, but you can make the bishop somewhat more valuable than the knight, and the rook less valuable than the minor piece and two pawns.

Education

Even in the earliest versions of the program, there were computer characters simulating, to some extent, the style of play of famous chess players of the past and present. World champions and well-known grandmasters. Here, of course, they are also present, and the localization made their presence unforgettable. The fact is that a brief biography and a description of the style of play of real chess players are attached to the computer prototypes. Well, the style is understandable, just a simplified representation of amateurs, like Kasparov likes to attack, Karpov likes to defend. But biography is something completely unimaginable. I haven't laughed like that in a long time. In general, Chessmaster is made by a separate development team, not the one that deals with the chess engine. And she's not that immersed in chess. And those who wrote the biography generally have little to do with chess, they took information from American sports magazines. They write about chess players, about the same as about boxers, all the time the prize fund of matches is mentioned. Chess player so and so went to a match for 2 million dollars with chess player so and so. But this is still true, they have a very simple and independent idea of ​​chess intrigue. Simply put, Kramnik became the only chess player who could oppose Kasparov in his pursuit of money. And stuff like that. And this is translated verbatim, even somewhat traced.

Now in the United States of America, chess is gradually entering education. Americans somehow learned that chess develops logical thinking (which helps to get a higher rating at the university and thus a more prestigious and highly paid job). In many states, chess is optionally taught in schools. For example, the new governor of California appreciates chess, it is included in the educational program of his family. And now Chessmaster is in this wave. In addition to the game itself, the program includes an interactive chess textbook.

There are lessons for beginners who want to get acquainted with chess. How to place the board correctly, how the pieces move, when it is possible to castle, etc. And, accordingly, a set of simple exercises for checkmate in one or two moves, checkmate with king and rook, king and queen. If you do something wrong, the program will explain your mistake and show you the correct move.

For a little more experienced players, there is a training session on the basic principles of playing in the opening. The program will play the main classic opening variations and ask you to indicate the correct second, third, fourth opening moves.

Then there are several hundred problems on elementary tactics in various types of position, opening, middlegame and endgame.

But this is not as interesting as the tasks for more experienced players. For amateurs who play by virtue of the first or second category according to our classification, it will be useful to solve a course of fifty problems in various typical endgames. Such things are taught in the classroom in various chess clubs and sections. But if, for example, you are retired and you are reluctant to study together with schoolchildren, you can study these problems and then beat someone in the park.

In conclusion, you will be asked to pass a rating exam, which consists of a mixture of tasks for tactics, endgame technique and strategy. It will also be very useful for the ranked chess players. Upon completion of the exam, you will be given an American Chess Federation rating score. When the FIDE ratings were still ending at 2000, a rating system was adopted in America, continuing the FIDE ratings downward. So don't be surprised by the 1900 rating and the like.

The training room also contains an interesting game - guess the move. It is necessary to indicate the correct moves in the positions from the games of famous chess players. The games are commented in detail and in key positions it is explained why the chess players played this way and not otherwise. There is also a set of fifty famous sketches and compositions of varying complexity. You can get a hint or an explanation why a particular move is wrong.

A useful little pawn endgame exercise

The quality of the translation is acceptable, but it could have been translated more literally. For example, don't write all the time, go there, go here. Sometimes it was worth writing at least to move a pawn to such and such a square, or, using some jargon, to push a pawn to such and such a square. But it’s good that at least we don’t "go down with a pawn." And you shouldn't have called the kingside or the queenside a side. Thus, an understandable, but too literal translation is obtained.

In general, the program contains several flaws; nowadays, few programs do not require patches for completely correct operation. And this program is no exception, there are some pretty funny bugs. For example, in the game room the computer chess moves advisor is buggy, always advising h4 or some other nonsense. But he is not really needed. Another cool glitch, during installation, the program wrote its files from the root directory of the program to f: \ program files, and subdirectories to c: \ program files. I was surprised for a very long time, looking in f: \ program files, where is this heap of directories? But all this does not interfere with the correct work.

By itself, the chess material of the textbook is of sufficient quality, at a professional level. We used educational materials from the books of American grandmasters, who specialize in this, in fact, some of them advised the developers of the program. True, there is such a funny moment: there is a list of the simplest exercises for various types of elementary tactics, forks, etc. And now there are inconceivable positions where you need to find a fork, although there is a checkmate in one move. But, apparently, it is believed that in this way tactical vision is trained for various types of tactics. Although, it seems to me, this is somewhat strange.

By the way, the program also contains a library of eight hundred classical and modern games of famous chess players. In the games, the main points of the struggle are marked, where one or another side was seriously mistaken. And sometimes it is not clear whether the grandmaster gave up in a hopeless position, or overdue the time in the won one. It is more convenient to view games in electronic form than to read in a book and reproduce moves on the board. This is, of course, very valuable. And this is in addition to just a base for five hundred thousand parties. Probably so cheap such a large base cannot be found anywhere else. Usually bases for professional chess players are much more expensive, and differ only in greater freshness, but this is required for those who play in serious tournaments in order to keep abreast of opening novelties.

Of course, this course is not extensive enough for those who want to deeply study chess. It is not intended for future professional chess players. Just as one of many benefits. Much more extensive interactive computer tutorials can be found on tactics, strategy, and whatever. But you still need to look for them, and they are quite expensive, since they are bought only by those who really need them.

So, Chessmaster 9000 is a whole complex that allows everyone to plunge into the whole chess world. And stay there, at least until the next version is released. However, the question is still interesting, how strong is the Chessmaster chess engine compared to other chess programs?

Kasparov-X3Dfritz match

At the end of last autumn in New York, another match of a series of fights of the world's strongest chess players with chess programs took place. The Kasparov-X3Dfritz match received a lot of media coverage and readers may have heard that it ended in a 2-2 draw. However, this match did not become anything special in the series of Human-Computer fights. It turned out to be a continuation of the previous matches. A new round of confrontation turned out to be somehow very closed, they came to the same place from which they left.

This article is largely a continuation of the article. "Computer chess from all points of view", which contains the history of matches of chess players with computers and the analysis of the game of chess programs. Actually, the last match confirmed all the conclusions drawn in the previous publication. So, let's go over the games of this secondary match, since there are only four of them. And ask Chessmaster if he will repeat the errors of the Fritz program? But by the way, why did this well-known program get the X3D prefix? The fact is that the match was sponsored by a company that produces some kind of "stupid" virtual reality glasses. They have developed a technology called X3D, which allows you to see a three-dimensional image on a more or less ordinary monitor with the help of special glasses. This effect is achieved as follows: at a high frequency, an image for the left and right eyes is generated on the monitor screen. And the glasses, synchronously with the monitor, are made opaque and also obscure the view of the right and left eyes. Thanks to this, a three-dimensional image is formed, approximately like in a dioscope - remember, there were and are such devices for viewing slides? Each eye is shown its own slide, and the picture is presented as three-dimensional. X3D works in a similar way, and the picture is not super high quality. Although, those who have not seen it with their own eyes cannot appreciate it. Kasparov, who had to play with these glasses, complained that after a long game the image floats somewhat and, in general, one feels tired. The chessboard is drawn on the monitor screen, and the moves are pronounced by voice. By the way, the computer itself had to recognize them. Not very familiar playing conditions, in general, probably for most chess players the most convenient presentation of chess on a computer screen is flat. But for the sake of popularizing chess, Kasparov had to agree to play with glasses. It is not entirely clear why the manufacturers of this cheap virtual reality chose a chess match for sponsorship, and not some erotic show, where, probably, three-dimensionality would be more appropriate. It may be easier to calculate the appearance of chess pieces for each eye, but this is just speculation. One way or another, instead of the chess aspects, you have to discuss these points. True, without sponsorship, the match would not have taken place at all.

The first game of the match, in which Kasparov played white, became the arithmetic average of the first two white games in his duel with Junior. Again the Slav Defense, again Kasparov has the initiative, only in those games Kasparov first developed a successful attack and won, but in the second game the attack was not so successful, and Kasparov blundered in a drawn position mate. Here Kasparov also received a strong initiative, and even won an exchange, but his king was quite open, and the man could not protect himself from a perpetual check. Thus, the game ended in a draw and added nothing special.

In the second game Kasparov played black, and in the Sicilian Defense Fritz did not really know what to do. I put the rook bluntly in the center, I acted in this spirit. Kasparov, on the other hand, was gradually preparing an attack on the kingside, and all would be fine, but the man took and out of the blue blundered a key pawn in one move. In the most ridiculous way, as is often the case when playing with a computer. Moved the wrong rook. It would be necessary to take the move back and play like the right rook, but Kasparov - not some depraved amateur - bravely continued the game, and after a few moves resigned. Unfortunately, this game also has no special value, you yourself can play something like this with your home computer. By the way, what kind of computer was used by the chess program? Especially wondering what kind of processor? It is clear that there should be enough memory. I searched the match website for a long time for information about this, but could not find it. Everywhere, in every line, the inscription X3D was visible, it can already be written on the fences, especially since it is made up of three letters. However, I managed to nevertheless find information in some forum, Fritz played on a four-processor server based on Xeon. True, it is not completely clear whether the entire computer was at his disposal, or whether he shared the power with the programs serving the creation of the chessboard image. And also the question is, were these four real processors, or virtual ones, because Xeon "ah has the technology of virtual multiprocessing Hyper-Treading. One way or another, this is very close to modern desktop computers, especially from a chess point of view. After all, the power of chess programs is more proportional to the logarithm of performance than just speed.On a twice as fast processor, the chess program will calculate the variations only slightly deeper, not even one move further.

Decisive game

But the third game in the match turned out to be entertaining and caused a lot of controversy. The fact is that many commentators suspected the coordinated nature of the match, in which the match would have to end in a draw. Many grandmasters stated in interviews that they were absolutely sure of a draw outcome of the match. And so Kasparov won his last white game by order. How did it come about? In the opening, Fritz chose a variation that leads to a closed position, where the whole board is blocked by a pawn chain. This nature of the position presupposes long-term planned maneuvering of figures without immediate threats. And so Fritz rearranged the pieces without any plan, simply maximizing their formal activity, the number of squares they can go, and very easily lost. The position had long been strategically hopeless, but he still continued to evaluate it as almost equal. Only at the very end, when large material losses became inevitable, or rather, easily visible, did he realize the full horror of his situation.

And then there were rumors that, firstly, Fritz played badly on purpose, and secondly, he deliberately chose the losing option. It is interesting to check what Chessmaster has to say about this, will he act as ineptly? To begin with, the base of five hundred thousand parties included in the program said that the option chosen by the blacks was the most percentage. That is, according to statistics from more than a hundred games, in this position the chosen continuation gives the highest average percentage of points. Further, the opponents followed one game for a long time, in which Black won. Like this. However, after the debut we got a hopeless position. It is interesting that one of the strongest chess players of the middle of the last century played - Reshevsky and Keres. Anyway, the Fritz team is clearly missing - they chose a percentage option, but not suitable for the program in terms of the nature of the position.

If you put Chessmaster in key positions from this game, then, no matter how much you tune him, attacking, not attacking, and no matter how much time you give to think, he still acts like Fritz, no understanding. So in this type of position, Chessmaster is just as stupid as Fritz. True, he began to evaluate the position in favor of the enemy earlier and, at least, did not go back and forth as a king. They say that Junior tried to play more or less correctly, but Junior can do a lot of things, we'll see that soon ...

In this position, the programs only think about how to play e4 as quickly as possible, as if by this move they win more than the queen. However, the closed center is not in their favor.

Now the computer will miss the chance to play f5 and start its counterplay on the kingside. Instead of f5, a senseless Kf6 followed

Thus, even if this party was negotiated, it was very competently made, and you cannot distinguish it from the real one.

In the last game, the opponents changed everything and agreed to a draw. Thus, the match also ended in a draw, adding nothing new to the matches Kaparov-Junior and Kramnik-Fritz had already held. It can be noted that Kasparov won all of the five white games in which his king was provided for, and those games in which the king was open ended in disappointment. Indeed, people are not cross-eyed, they look in one direction, looking at unexpected lateral counter attacks. As I wrote in the last article, a person fights in conditions unequal to a computer, which gives rise to games that have no chess value.

Computer Championship

Let's move on from the duels between humans and artificial intelligence to a competition between the chess programs themselves. At the end of the year, the next championship among programs took place. Such competitions attract more and more attention, especially since then their participants fight with people. Unexpectedly, the computer championship is held in a much more spectacular and uncompromising struggle than human fights. Computers are hardworking, and don't make short draws that fans hated. He always chooses the sharpest principled continuations, White attacked the rook, Black did not take away the rook in response, but attacked the queen, and White gave a check, then tied the piece that attacked the queen, and so on. An unimaginable "mess" turns out on the board. People never play like that, because most chess players do not risk going for variations that they cannot calculate with more or less reliable accuracy. And computers are not cowards, they are not afraid of anything, they do not think that they can easily miscalculate and lose. Indeed, computers are more suitable for chess sports than humans, since they have the most important quality that all athletes need - unshakable unshakable self-confidence. In some respects, such competitions are interesting to watch, since games abound with the sharp struggle so beloved by chess fans. Moreover, the programs allegedly learned to donate material for positional factors. In fact, such a sacrifice is often a delayed long exchange combination that you cannot immediately discern, or a miscalculation when the program missed the opponent's response on the tenth move. But it looks enticing. And of course, if programs evaluate positional factors, such as the activity of pieces, in pawns, then they can exchange a real pawn for a pawn of virtual advantage. Sometimes it looks beautiful and human.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to find comments on the games of chess programs that would highlight all the stupidity that is going on on the board. The fact is that many commentators have long been using the same chess programs in their work, and in this case they are bad helpers. They make mistakes in the same places as computer players, and give corresponding incorrect estimates. With the help of them, it is good to analyze the games of people ("here the grandmaster did not see the withdrawal of a pawn in five moves", etc.). Computers are constantly calculating in sharp positions, since they do not see the opponent's silent responses at the end of long multi-pass variations, but this is difficult to detect, since the programs need to set a very long time to analyze the position.

And how did Chessmaster, or rather his chess engine, prove to be among his fellows? But in any way, he did not take part at all. The King, as the Chessmaster engine is called, won some other software championship in the first half of the year. How these championships relate, why programs either take or do not take part in them - this is not very clear to the uninitiated. This is its own incomprehensible world of incomprehensible intrigues. There is even more room for manipulation than in the human championship. For example, they decided to hold a new championship on multiprocessor machines, and all programs that do not support multiprocessing turn out to be in the red. A lot of things you can think of. Creators sometimes save new versions of programs to prepare them for the same matches with people. As a result, every popular program is a champion. Everything that is on sale once won the championship, and you can safely write on the boxes: "The strongest chess program!" It turns out like in boxing, where almost every fighter is a champion, world champion, intercontinental, continental, etc.

Further, opening preparation probably means a lot in the computer championship, since the computer stores the entire database in its memory and can effectively play at the initial stage of the game according to a previously developed scenario. This is especially important because chess programs are especially confident in positions with the opponent's weaknesses and a clear plan to strengthen and attack the weakened points in the position. Then they gradually harmonize and carefully strengthen the position of their figures, gradually bringing the superiority to the decisive one. Moreover, not knowing the winning plan in advance, they will see it later when they strengthen the position to the maximum. And this opening preparation is expensive, because you need to hire qualified chess players. Whole teams work with popular programs, like leading athletes, who have their own chef and anyone else ...

Apparently, the creators of Chessmaster decided to save some money this time. The first place was shared by Fritz and Shredder, the third was taken by Junior, all other programs were far behind. They do not have such super teams as the promoted programs. They don’t need it. Let's look at two interesting examples and compare the moves in the games offered by Chessmaster.

This is a position from the Junior game with one of the outsiders. Here Junior will soon lose, and it is this defeat that will not allow him to catch up with the leaders with whom he will play successfully, since no one else will give the outsiders points. What happened? Junior played White, played Qd3, sacrificing the b4-pawn for the initiative. However, the attack turned out to be incorrect, the opponent ate everything, defended and won. After the game, the creators of Junior said that it was a terrible programming problem, this time the intuition failed the program. It was a game from the first round, probably by mistake the same settings were introduced into the program that were in its match against Kasparov. Where she also unexpectedly sacrificed something in the fifth game, and Kasparov went to a draw by repetition of moves, because he was afraid to play for a win in a very sharp position. And the computer is not afraid of anything, did not repeat the moves and beat Junior.

Chessmaster, of course, doesn't play like that. He chooses between the most active and accurate h4! and more reliable Rd1. So at least Junior is not always stronger than Chessmaster.

And here is the key position from the decisive game between Fritz and Shredder in the extra match for the first place. Fritz has long had a reputation for being slow and hard-to-read software. And then it affected, the program seriously miscalculated, not noticing several quiet moves of the enemy. To g6, Fritz responded by Rg3? Without fully calculating Rc8! with a lot of tactical threats, and lost. And Chessmaster also wanted to play Rg3 at the beginning, but quickly found the right move leading to a draw, f-g!

Chess commentators like to use Fritz, since the program has a user-friendly interface - so how many holes are there in such analyzes? Especially when playing games between chess programs ...

So, we have finished our conversation about computer chess. As you can see, nothing of the kind happens - new versions of programs are slowly coming out, everything is still going on ...

Analysis of the selected games of the championship among chess programs.

Site of the match Kasparov-X3Dfritz.

Hello dear friends, everyone. Papa Zhorik is with you.

In today's article I will tell you about how we spend with Zhorik chess analysis the game played online. Moreover, the analysis is very high quality.

The computer shows with arrows the moves (where it is better to go), where the error is. Shows "+" or "-" with numbers, immediately finds options for mates in a certain number of moves, sacrifices, combinations and everything in this spirit.

And everything is very convenient. Played - pressed the button - you analyze the game for each move. The computer is not a fool, it analyzes everything very well. Don't think that you are smarter than him. =)

In fact, now a bunch of different free and paid programs are in Russian and English, where all sorts of engines are connected. There are services, etc. But personally, both me and Zhorik like to analyze everyone more. on lichess.org.

If you play on a computer, then it looks like this:

And if on the phone (iPhone), then like this:

The scheme is simple if you play on the lichess.org site itself. Played, press after the game - analysis:

And clicking on each move in the table with the mouse, look at what the computer shows you. The Stockfish 8.0 engine will analyze the chess game. In fact, a very cool engine, so you can be sure of its quality of analysis.

Here's an example of a game that I played with Zhorik. They tested him for knowing the trap in the defense of the pawn on e5, with the pawn on f6. The game was: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fe:

You see, the computer shows with an arrow a pier to move with the next move, he advises the queen to h5. He also estimates it by position as +3.6 in favor of White.

In fact, you sit like this after the game, you look at your mistakes and you understand how easy it was to win that. I would arrange for him.)))

Chess analysis improves your level of play. You start to find good moves, you start to see sacrifices, good combinations, etc.

Farther. If you do not play lichess, but for example somewhere on another site, or even offline with a friend in a chess club in your city or at some kind of competition, sit down and write down the game on a form and want to analyze it, then again, with lichess is not a problem.

If you have a pgn file, you can import it into lichess and analyze it along the way:

Also, if you do not need analysis from the very beginning of the game, and you want to analyze a certain chess position and find out how you could have made a better move than you did in fact, then everything is just as simple here.

Go to board editor and choose whose move:

Cleaning the board:

Set the desired position by dragging the figures onto the board:

Press the button - "Analysis". In the end, this is what the copm shows me:

Checkmate in 4 moves. With the sacrifice of the rook.)) These are the pies.

Analyze, practice and improve your playing skills. In conclusion of the article, I suggest that you analyze the games between Sergey Karjakin and Magnus Carlsen.

Watch the games here, and make your moves on lichess.org under the stockfish analysis. I also advise you to analyze the various.

That's all for me. Wait for new articles. We will further describe other possibilities of computer analysis. For example, there is such a mega cool program - Chessbase.

See you soon...

Chess Game analysis with chess engines
Part one
translated Russian by Google
Chess game analysis
Using ChessBase Engines
(Part one)
Steve Lopez
The "explosion" chess program over the past fifteen years has had many positive advantages for chess players, not least of which is the ability to play chess anytime you want. You don't have to wait for weekly chess club meetings or take chess to the park in the hopes of getting casual games.

But the most important feature provided in almost all chess software packages is often the most overlooked: the ability to have a chess engine analyze your game and provide personalized information on how to improve your game.
The whole reason why I bought my first computer back in the early 1990s was to access this feature. I have been playing chess and studying chess books for years, but never had the experience of someone looking at my games and showing me where I went wrong. After I bought a computer and some chess software and started using them to analyze my game, I learned a lot about my own shortcomings as a player. I decided to fix these problems and my results on the board have improved significantly.
In this short series of articles, I'll show you how to do the same. While specific step-by-step instructions will apply to the use of chess engines within the ChessBase Chess Interface (used byFritz, Hiarcs, Junior, Shredder, Rybka, etc.), the principles we will discuss apply to any chess program that has ability to analyze the game. In the first article we will look at the basics of creating and using a game. Analysis of the peculiarities of using the "Complete Analysis" feature in ChessBase production plays the program interface. In a second article we will discuss using the same interface the "Blundercheck" feature, which also provides a complete analysis of the game with the output appearing in a slightly more complex (but also more useful) form. In the last article, we will talk about practical applications of chess program feedback, for example, how to use this information to help you improve your own playing skills.

If you want top-notch analysis with your chess engine, there are some things you want to do before starting a chess program. Do not run any other programs while your chess engine is analyzing - you are weakening the engine by doing so. This offer also includes any "background" (ie "Quit and Stay Resident") programs that can be launched, such as screen savers, anti-virus programs, "crash guard", etc.
The next step is to run the chess program (as noted above, we will be using the ChessBase-produced game software for this article). Press F3 to access the list of available engines and select the one you want to use, we will be using Fritz in this article.

Complete analysis
Once you have selected your chess engine, there are several different ways to proceed. One is to go to the game database list, double click on the game you want to analyze (load it into the main chessboard screen), then go to the Tools menu, select "Analysis" from the menu, and then "Full Analysis" from the submenu. I do not recommend this procedure for several reasons. First, you cannot access the full range of "Full Analysis" options using this method. Second, you need to remember to manually save the game to the database after the analysis is complete.
Instead, I recommend the following procedure (which actually saves a couple of steps anyway). First load the database where you saved the game you want to analyze - hit F12 to open the game list window, and if the database is not shown correctly, go to File / Open / Database to select the correct one. After you have loaded a suitable database, find the game you want to analyze in the list and with one click on it is to place the cursor over the game to highlight it in the list. Then go to the Tools menu, select "Analysis" and then "Full Analysis" from the submenu. To do this, the following dialog will be displayed:

There's a fair few things to consider here! This dialog allows you to set timing parameters and control the analysis output of your chess engine. While this dialog may look daunting at first glance, it is indeed very easy to use. Let's take a look at the different sections of this dialog and explore what these options do.

Timing and threshold calculation
The first thing you should consider is the "Timing" and "Threshold" options. Typically, the more time you allow your engine to calculate the deeper ("farther ahead") it will look into that position - and you will therefore better analyze in response. too low.
First, we need to understand what timing really means. The value in this field is in seconds. If you set this value to, say, "30", it means that your chess engine should (theoretically) analyze every move in the game for about thirty seconds on average. In practice, however, it does not work that way. Setting the value to "30" does not mean that the program will stop the analysis when it hits the thirty-second digit and the best option falls, it is in the game score. What this means is that when the thirty-second decimal place is reached the program will complete the analysis of the current depth layer before providing its analysis and proceed to the next move. If the program has just started, say, the tenth layer is at twenty-eight-second digits, it may take two minutes or more before he finishes evaluating that tenth layer and moves on to the next move.

Thus, we can understand why setting the timing parameters too high may be a disadvantage - it may require many, many hours of calculation by the program to complete its analysis. However, setting the parameter too low (for example, to a value of "5") will force the program to fully analyze the game very quickly (in a few minutes), but the quality of the program's suggestions will be quite low.
Adequate settings will differ from car to car and will require some experimentation on your part to discover. The chess engine analysis games are best done at night - it is going to take a few hours for the program to provide a decent quality analysis (six hours is not too much time). The trick is to find a convenient analysis time without tying up your computer for ten, twelve, or more hours. Start with the value "60" (as shown in the picture above). If you find that your program completes by analysis rather quickly (say, within two hours on a 40-turn game), you want to raise the timing up. However, if you start the analysis process, go to bed, come back at eight o'clock, and the program is still analyzing the middlegame from a 40-move game, you need to reduce the Timing parameter accordingly.

The threshold is given in increments of 1 / 100th pawn - in other words, the threshold value "1" is 0.01 pawn. Threshold allows you to control how much analysis the chess engine provides and the circumstances under which it will show you to move better. As he analyzes, the program will evaluate each position in the game and find the best move in each position. This will assign a numerical value to each position (ie "If White plays these changes, he will be 0.75 pawn better").
The threshold shows the difference between the best line of play the chess engine finds and the movement that was actually played in the game. For example, if you set the threshold to "50", the program will display an alternate option on a case-by-case basis in which the best line of play (as judged by the program) is better than the actual move by half a pawn or more.
So what value should you assign to the threshold? If you are a beginner chess player I recommend the value "100", this will force the program to show you tactical blunders where you have lost a particular material (eg a pawn or more). It is unlikely that a beginner will be able to figure out why a particular move is better than a fractional pawn, and early players should focus on tactics anyway, so the "100" setting will work pretty nicely, showing you the tactical mistakes you "made."
For the intermediate to advanced player I usually recommend the value "30". Strong chess players and computer chess experts generally estimate tempo loss as the equivalent of about a third of a pawn. Using a value of "30" will indicate these types of temporary loss of positional errors (as well as any other significant positional errors).

Some players use very low values ​​(eg "1"), but I don't think this will be very useful. If you play the "perfect game" (as if such a thing really existed), most of the moves you play can be improved by the chess engine 0.05 to 0.10 pawns, and it's just too close a shave, of which most human players are can receive any significant benefit.

Other options
Once you have set the "Timing" and "Threshold" parameters, it's time to move on to the other switches in this dialog. The "Annotations" window allows you to select the different forms that annotations can take. Let's start at the bottom of the list. "Delete old annotations" means exactly that - the program will delete any existing annotations in the game score. If you have previously manually added any text, symbolic, or graphic commentary to a game (or any other previously selected annotated game), this checkbox will cause that comment to be removed - so use this switch wisely.
Going back to the top of the list, "Verbose" means that the program will add some common language of verbal commentary to the game. It is important to note that this commentary is very rudimentary - the program will not give a nine-paragraph dissertation on why you were unable to correctly work with Maroczi's structure to bind the opponent's pawn. We will show an example of a verbal commentary to the program a little later.

"Graphic" means that the program will display colored arrows and squares on the board wherever it deems such commentary is necessary. This usually takes the form of showing weak squares (by coloring them), or control squares (for example, you can see many arrows in an isolated pawn, showing the pieces that attack and defend that pawn).
"Learning" allows a program created to timed the preparation of an issue at critical points in the game. These are usually in the form of tactical problems in which you are asked to find the best move in position. Please note that the program will not create these questions in every game - in my experience I have seen them created once every twenty to twenty-four games I had an analysis program.

Database link
In the picture above, you will notice that "Link Opening" is shown in half tone and is not available. This is because I did not assign "Database Reference" before I created the illustration. You assign such a database by clicking " Reference-DB "button (visible at the bottom of the dialog) and database selection. Selecting the" Open link "option will allow you to abandon the program installed opening options from other games to your game account, as shown below:

In this picture, you can see where the program added three alternatives to the game (as you often see in chess books and magazines) and even designated the move 5 ... e6 as a "theoretical novelty" (which doesn "t mean that 5 ... e6 was necessarily a good move, only that this move was not found in the games of the reference database).
Please note that when choosing a reference database, that database you select must have an opening key attached to it in order for this feature to work properly. I also found that the function works best if the reference database is one containing the discovery-only games used in the analyzed game - otherwise the program sometimes crashes in the annotation at the very beginning of the game, which is from other unrelated holes.
You can select any or all of the options in the "Notes" section, choosing one does not "override" any others.

The radio buttons in the "Side" window speaks for itself - you can select a chess engine to analyze both players moves or only one player moves. My strong assumption is that you always select "Both" - the program will perform much better if you do so, and it is always beneficial for you to see how your opponent could improve his game by punishing his mistakes.
You can only choose one option in the "Side", choosing the option here prevents you from choosing any of the others.
Finally we come to the "Storage" options. "Replace" means that the program will physically replace your game in the database with a new, annotated version (for example, if you have an analysis program for game no. 320 in the database, the old game no. 320 will be replaced with a new version). "Add" means that the program will add the game to the database "by tacking it on" as the last game in the list of the game database (for example, you are analyzing game # 320 in the game database 2474. The program will analyze Game # 320, keep the current # 320 intact, and add his analyzed game to the database as the 2475th match on the list). The downside to using Append is that you end up with the same game twice in the database, once in its original form and a second time in its annotated form.

Start analysis
After you set the parameters and the selected parameters in this dialog, click the "OK" button and the chess engine will start analyzing your game. The display screen will change from the "game list" window to the main screen to the chessboard. This step is currently being evaluated highlighted in the panel designation with a dark cursor. If you follow the process for a few minutes you will notice something interesting: the program starts analyzing at the end of the game and works backwards through the moves. As the program finds the best changes it will insert them into the game to score as possible to re-play the variations. When analyzing the completion process, the program will return to the database "list of games" display (if you started the analysis process from the list of games, as I recommended above), the cursor highlighting the newly annotated game - this is how you "will know that the process will be completed.
When the analysis is complete, double click on the game account to download the game. You will notice that the program often uses symbolic commentary to show its assessment of the proposed changes and the moves are actually being played. To understand the analysis, you must know what these symbols mean:

You can see how much better the recommended line is by comparing the estimate of the move actually played with the estimate of the proposed chess engine changes:

Here we see an interesting phenomenon: the chess engine will sometimes show weak lines to illustrate a point. In this graphic we can see that this move is actually played, 18.cxd5 with white leaves with substantial lead. But if White had captured black d5-pawns with a rook instead of (18.Rxd5), he would have remained only with an equal play after Black's reply 18 ... a5.
Here is a screen shot of the panel notation to give you an idea of ​​the type of comments that the chess engine will provide in the ChessProgram interface:

You can see that the text of the commentary (created because we chose "Verbose" as the "annotation" option) is very short and is intended mainly to draw our attention to interesting and / or important points in the game. Sometimes the text describes the purpose of the move (as is the case with the notes after White's seventh move and Black's twelfth move). In other cases, the text of the commentary, the program simply warns us about the points at which one player is in trouble (White 21 and 23 moves). And sometimes the program will use text to indicate the places where the player can improve his play (such as changing by 31 moves by White).
Now that we know how the "Full Analysis" option works in the chess program interface, we will look at a way to "fine-tune" Analysis and get even more specific information, albeit in numerical rather than verbal form. This "Blundercheck" Analysis Option will be explained in the second part of this article series.

(Part two)
Steve Lopez
In the first part of this series, we looked at the "Complete Analysis" feature in the ChessProgram ChessBase interface (used by Fritz, Hiarcs, Rybka, Junior, and Shredder). This feature allows you to analyze your games and will provide general information about where you might have gone wrong in your game. The second form of analysis is called "Blundercheck", and is similar in many ways to the "Full Analysis" function. "Blundercheck" will analyze your games and show where you (and your opponent) made mistakes, but its output is digital, not verbal. This is the traditional display mode of chess analysis; this has been around ever since the first commercial PC chess software came out in 1980. This traditional numerical analysis is, in many ways, a much more accurate analysis method in that it will show you the exact (up to 1 / 100th pawn) difference between the move you made and the recommended move that the chess engine determines to be better. Instead of a symbolic annotation that shows, in general terms, how much better the recommended variations are, numerical scores will show you exactly how your move and recommended lines differ.

Blundercheck
The name "Blundercheck" means that the program will only show you basic errors, but this is not the case. This analysis mode was originally conceived as a way for advanced players to test their own analysis, for example a chess writer can comment on a game and use "Blundercheck" to show errors in its variations as a means of "double-checking" its work for "blunders" in your analysis. But "Blundercheck" is much more useful as a means for average players to get a better idea of ​​what the chess engine is showing them.
Let's first show you how to create and use the "Blundercheck" function, then we will descibe the motor power. Just as in the previous article for the "complete analysis", we will follow similar first steps to get to the "Blundercheck" dialogue. After launching your ChessProgram interface, press F3 and select the chess engine you want to use for your analysis. After selecting the engine, press F12 to open the game list window. If the correct database is not displayed, go to the File menu and select Open / Database and use the file selection dialog to navigate to the appropriate folder and database file. Double click on the file name to open the database.
After the list of games is displayed, click once on the game you want to analyze, this will place a black cursor bar on that entry in the list of games. Now go to the Tools menu, select Analyze and then Blundercheck to display the following dialog:

Some parts of this dialogue will be familiar to you (after reading the first part of this series). We've already discussed "Side Analyze", but I'll reiterate my best recommendation to always use "AND" - the program works much better in this mode, and it will also alert you to mistakes that your opponent made (and which you could would be punished).
"Storage" was also discussed in the previous article.
"Exit" is a new feature unique to the "Blundercheck" feature. "Annotations as text" means that the lines played by the chess engine recommends that they be presented as text annotations - that is, they will look strictly like text and the text will not be automatically replayable on the chessboard when you are familiar with the game. Hence Istrongly recommend another option: "annotations as variations". This will result in the recommended lines of the chess engine, which will be presented as replayable variations (as they appear when you use "Full Analysis") - you will be able to play variations on the chessboard when you become familiar with the game later.

"Time" Setting is the same as "Calc. Time" in "Full Analysis" mode and the same recommendations apply here. Additional setting here "Depth", the engine will always analyze so that the layer depth that you set in this field - never less, not more. Time and Depth are mutually exclusive, you can set one or the other, but not both. My recommendation is to use the "Time" setting instead of the "Depth" setting; the use of the latter often results in short changes that are cut off in the "forcing" line (for example, in a series of checks or captures).
"Threshold" works in "Blundercheck" mode exactly as it does in "Full Analysis" and the same recommendations apply here.

A series of flags follows Threshold and gives you a good bit of latitude in how the chess engine will display its output. "Write full variations" is an interesting setting. Checking this box means that the chess engine will display a full change (with steps for both sides) when it finds an improvement over what you or your opponent actually played in the game. If you uncheck this box, then the program will only display the initial step when it finds something better than the game itself. Seeing only the first move is not very beneficial for the average player, you will often find yourself wondering, "Why was it better to move?" Hence, I urge you to keep this checkbox so that you will see "observation" moving towards the best of that initial movement.

"Remove old annotations" works the same as in "Full analysis" and is applied to previously annotated games, the program will remove everything up to annotations from gamescore.
"Learning" was described in a previous article; this allows the program to generate timed preparation questions as part of its analysis. This usually occurs approximately every twenty to twenty four games on average.

"Store scores" must be checked: this allows the program to add its scores to the changes it inserts into the gamescore. Unchecking this box actually wins the entire "Blundercheck" feature for the average player. The ability to omit these numerical scores is included primarily for grandmaster-level players who are presumably able to make these scores on their own.

"Check the highways" tells the program to evaluate the steps that were actually played by the two players. This should always be checked. Checkbox "Check variations" for players who want to have a chess engine "double-check" any changes they manually add to gamescore; this field is useful for contributors / commentators who want an engine to check their work for errors.
After you set the parameters in this dialog, click the "OK" button. The program will switch to the main screen of the chessboard, jump to the last move in the game (as described in the previous article), and start the analysis. This will take a step backward through the game, adding variation and numerical analysis at the points where it finds the best line of the game. When the program finishes analyzing the game it will return to the game list screen, where you will see the game again highlighted in black by the cursor. Now you can double click on this game to download it and watch, analyze the game:

Note that Fritz (the chess engine used to analyze this particular game) inserted a five point variation in the game in which he found the best pitch for any player (based on the "Threshold" setting provided when analyzing the parameters were set). It is interesting to note only the text of the annotation reads: "The last move of the book". This means that 4.Be2 was the last step that was found in the opening of the book that was loaded when the analysis was started. Black's answer, 4 ... a6, was not found in the opening of the book.
To understand the numerical analysis of the chess engine, let's take a closer look at one of the options it provided:

Analysis with reference to Black's seventeenth move (17 ... exd5). Numerical analysis is always given from a white point of view, positive numbers mean that the position is favorable for White, while negative numbers mean that the position was better for Black. In this case, we see that White enjoys an advantage of 94 / 100ths out of a pawn (0.94) after Black's actual move 17 ... exd5, which means that White is almost a full pawn forward in the opinion of the chess engines. But Black could have improved on this play 17 ... Bxc3. The program continues to give a recommended variation in which it assumes the best play for both sides. After this sequence of moves that ends with 22.Qc4, White will still enjoy 44 / 100ths of a pawn advantage - but note that this advantage is significantly less than after the actual play move. With 17 ... Bxc3, White was almost a full pawn forward, but in the change after 17 ... Bxc3, White's advantage would be less than half a pawn. Black would have reduced White's advantage by exactly half a pawn (0.94 - 0.44 = 0.50) if he had played the bishop capture instead.

The number "13" after the numerical estimate of the variation tells us how deep the search went ahead of the chess engine arrived at the given estimate. In this case, the engine analyzed the position after 17.d5 at a depth of thirteen layers (half moves) to come to its conclusion about how Black could have improved his play.

We can easily see how accurate this information is when compared to the Full Analysis output. While "Complete Analysis" is a little more readable, "Blundercheck" gives us more accurate information. We know exactly how much better the suggested variation is compared to the move actually played, and we also know exactly how deep the search engine is to arrive at its assessment. Hence, Complete Analysis is well suited for beginners or inexperienced players, while intermediate and advanced players will enjoy and benefit from the accuracy of Blundercheck's analysis.

In the final article of this series, we will learn how to apply the information engine to the challenge of improving our own chess game.

(Part three)
Steve Lopez
In this part, the final installment of a three series of articles, we'll look at how you will use a chess engine (such as Fritz, Rybka, Shredder, Junior, and Hiarcs) to help you improve your chess. This is not going to be a software tutorial per se; we are not going to look at the "click on x to make y happen" instructions, as we covered those in the previous two articles. We are instead exploring how you will use the output generated by the game's analysis to help you improve your chess.
Someone once said that “the first step to knowledge is to admit your ignorance,” that the statement certainly applies here. In order to profit from having a chess engine analyze your games, you first need to make a (possibly painful) recognition that there is a lot about chess that you don't know, but you need to learn. Over the years I have spoken with more than one user of chess programs who have used analysis functions like "ego booster", admiring the moves that the chess engine considers "correct" while ignoring the unsatisfactory moves (or outright errors) that the software software discovered. This approach may be "Chicken Soup for the Soul", but a real waste of a valuable chess improvement tool To get the most out of your own game analysis engine, you must first admit to yourself that your chess game needs improvement - there is no other way.

In fact, the whole process is based on the fact that you have already decided that there is something wrong with your chess and you want to correct the mistakes. What we need to do now is clarify the process: how are we going to use the generated analysis engine to improve?

Contrary to what several development companies would think that no piece of chess software alone is guaranteed to improve your chess results. I understand that more than a few players are looking for a "magic bullet": one book or piece of software that, in itself, makes the player a kind of "moment master". Sorry, but this is a faint hope that it just won't happen. What we, as players, as learners, need to do is find a way to integrate chess research and chess practice into a method for improvement. In fact, that (and the hard work it entails) is the key to getting better at chess.
Let's take a closer look at this idea. Improving chess is actually a three-step cycle of processes:
Practice
Analysis
Study
Nobody is a piece of software that will help you in all three areas. Chess game programs excel by helping you with practice (you can play the games anytime you want) and analysis (you can also have engines analyzing your game in your spare time). While some chess programs contain textbooks on various aspects of chess, it is usually geared towards absolute beginners and inexperienced players. For a higher level of instruction suitable for intermediate players, you need to refer to books and specialized chess teaching software. This brings us to another important point. Chess books and chess programs are not mutually exclusive, it is easy enough to combine chess books and software using the best of both development environments for effective workouts. We'll come back to this idea after a while. First, however, we must consider the "Learning Cycle" in order to understand the three processes.

Practice refers to any chess game you play. Within the curriculum, “practice” does not only mean games that “do not count” (such as games against the computer or impromptu games you play at a chess club or against a friend). "Practice" refers to the practical application of existing chess knowledge, that is, the application of what you know to a real-world game. Anytime you play chess (as opposed to puzzle-solving tactics or "checkmate in x" problems, etc.) you are practicing what you know. This is what we mean by "practice."

Analysis means looking at your games after you play them, looking at them to find flaws in your game. While it's always nice to look at a three move combination that won the opponent's rook and allowed you to win the last game you played (and we all wanted to admire what we did right), it's more important to look at the rest of the game to see , is there anything we could do better. It is ironic that chess has a reputation as a game for the selfish, because there are several other activities that require you to be as harshly self-critical as chess demands.
Research is exactly what the word means: the process of learning new techniques in order to correct one's shortcomings. "Research" can mean reading a book on positional chess, solving a tactic of a problem with CD chess and / or analyzing the games of great chess players, these are any actions we take to increase our knowledge of the "nuts and bolts" of our own way of playing chess.