Analysis of chess games online. Free chess game analyzer "Creatica" for MS Windows by Arkady Polyakevich. Shells and client programs

Suppose you played a game of chess while visiting or on vacation and wanted to analyze it without delay. I don’t have my favorite chess engine, UI for it, or endgame database at hand. What resources are available to us online for analyzing chess positions?

Debuts on chess.com

More than 3000 opening lines played by masters. You can see the number of games played, the % of games from this opening that ended in victory, draw and loss.

In a couple of seconds you can get an analysis of a position to a depth of 23 to a depth of 38. You can ask for a deeper analysis. The board is connected to the engine in the cloud, and can also use the processor of the local computer directly from the browser without additional installations.

English party

Endgames on syzygy-tables.info

There are 6 pieces or less on the board and you want to know if it was possible to place or get checkmate here? Was it possible to reduce the game to a draw? Easy, syzygy-tables.info provides free access to 6 piece endgames instantly. An additional bonus for developers of chess programs is that there is an open API that, using FEN, allows you to get JSON with position data.

The article consists of two series, separated by years. Of course, over time you begin to look at many things differently, and also write differently. One of the classics even said that there are no people more different than the same person at different moments in life. But in this case, I largely agree with my younger self.

Position assessment in chess.

White already has two extra pawns here, he can eat more. And Black has some advantage in development, multiplied by optimism! In the fight against the computer, this is not enough for a positive result. But you can play against people, even against grandmasters. None of them (except those with headphones) can find the exact path to victory during the game; everyone will certainly make mistakes in big complications. It is very important whether the position has a clear plan, clear positional ideas that make it easier to choose a move. In the absence of these, even very good positions in an absolute sense can lead to disastrous results in the performance of protein players. So, for a person who is going to play chess with his own kind, the first assessment of the position is much more important - statistical! You can call this assessment human. Let later Garry Kimovich, together with the iron monster, prove that your position was actually bad. After all, this will happen later, after the game you win. Won contrary to an objective assessment of the position! You can regularly successfully play an objectively bad position, and you can repeatedly lose an objectively good one. So don’t be afraid of the ratings that commentators give to one or another option. Remember - there will be a living person sitting opposite you at the board, who may well make a mistake! He will help you. The main thing is that the position is full of life, and that it is not easy to play for both sides. In this case, an objective-absolute assessment will not have much meaning. Especially when you are short on time! Play chess with people! Sergey Shipov, 2002.

Now let me supplement the article with considerations of the present day that arose during the discussion at the Constitutional Court forum... They clarify, reveal and complement some points. Mobutu wrote: “The conclusion of the article, as I understood it in relation to this example: if you are not a hero, then a thousand times you don’t give a damn about the absolute assessment. Choose the club that has better statistics." Exactly! And also choose the club that like. Because if you play with the mood, with desire, with passion, then you regularly win even bad positions. For example, a certain player, already established (this is important), plays crooked openings and gambits with pleasure, and scores a decent percentage of points there. Then a smart, strict uncle appears and begins to instruct the player, they say, play correctly - choose solid openings, get objective results good positions. So what's going on? Of course, the player’s mood disappears, the pressure disappears and the percentage of points may well decrease. Here's a concrete example - international master Nikolai Vlasov (aka bazar-wokzal, he's also the world champion on the Internet, he's also the owner of two samovars, etc.). Take away his favorite horses from him ( 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6!), the signature Scandinavian attack, the Coffin attack and other crookedness, put into your hands orthodox, correct openings - and instead of a bright, original fighter who can beat literally any opponent, you will get an unremarkable, unpromising player. It will be easy for him not interested play emerging positions. There will be no desire to dive into the nuances. And as a result, practical strength will fall. Of course, it is very important to consider your playing style. It is necessary to select an opening repertoire for it, without being embarrassed by the theoretical assessments of strict analysts. And he also dictates the optimal strategy for fighting in unfamiliar positions. For example, let's take Tal, Shirov and other talented attackers... They became who they are because they were able to use their best qualities, without adapting to standards and regulations. Along with completely correct combinations, they often bluffed, which also brought them success. Rivals sometimes knew and felt that the sacrifices of the magicians were incorrect, that there had to be a refutation somewhere. And the analysis after the game confirmed this. What's the point? At the board, with the clock ticking, opponents in objectively better or even winning positions made mistakes and lost - in most cases! But in a dry, positional, correct fight they would have had more chances. Thus, attackers are conscious deterioration positions are sought improvements their results. And that's okay. An absolute assessment of a position is not an end in itself! And on the contrary, subtle positional masters - Petrosyan, Kramnik and others - sometimes feel that the position objectively requires sacrifices, combinations and other special effects. But, knowing their shortcomings, they deliberately dry up the game; strictly speaking, they worsen their position, but at the same time increase the likelihood of a positive result and practically eliminate loss. Eliminate the possibility of a gross error. And again, this is normal. Statistics speak in favor of this method. So, players regularly select that class of positions in which the probability of their error is lower than the probability of error of their opponent - in accordance with their own style and sometimes (this happens much less often) in accordance with the style of their opponent. And absolute assessments of emerging positions often play a secondary role- it is most important! The averaging here does not take place over all players on both sides, but only over the opponents on one side - the opponents of a particular performer. This is one of the ways to implement a probabilistic strategy in chess. Apparently, in the context of the above, it is worth introducing a third term - individual position assessment. (You can also say “subjective”, and then for the sake of uniformity you will have to replace the word “absolute” with “objective”). The same position for a tough attacker and a cautious technician can be assessed differently. And there is no contradiction in these assessments! Before us is the real theory of relativity in chess. Everything depends on the point of view, on the coordinate system. Indeed, in a complex irrational position, the attacker will have great chances of winning, and the technician will have only some chances of salvation. Conversely, it is easy to come up with a counterexample. Discrepancies (discrepancies, incomplete correspondence) between absolute and statistical assessments occur quite often. But I will give a vivid example. Let's imagine a middlegame position in which White is attacking and has already sacrificed a couple of pieces. Let's say they have a single, non-trivial, very complex, multi-move path to victory, connected with the sacrifice of a couple more pieces and with quiet moves in the middle of a heated battle. It could be any intermediate position from a complex combination. For example,

Absolute position score: 1-0. Strictly! To understand it, it is enough to understand the idea (queen sacrifice on e5 followed by dominance) and look at it with good computer. Thus, which is not able to calculate the vast majority of other positions and will only give approximate estimates in them, which can be taken to some approximation as absolute. But the statistical assessment of our position will be completely different! Well, people can't count like machines, especially when time is limited. And they are not used to giving away queens for knights. Therefore, in the position on the diagram, the white queen will most likely retreat, the e6 pawn will die, and Black will spin up. And most often the game will end in peace or defeat for White. That is, this position, which is objectively lost for Black in human duels, is objectively more profitable to play with Black! Let's sum up the two-part film! There are three types of chess position assessment: absolute, statistical and individual. It is very important to distinguish between situations when one of them comes to the fore. All are important in their own way, and often they contradict each other. But in general there is no contradiction! The last capacious example is my favorite animal, which can be seen on the logo of the Crestbook website. I stubbornly continue to play as Black some objectively difficult positions of the Hedgehog system, which, according to statistics, however, give good results. Absolute assessment of the position - Black is bad! Statistical assessment - the chances of the parties are mutual. And my individual assessment is this: Black has an advantage! I hope that this will remain the case in the future... This is such a paradox. One position has three different ratings! Sergey Shipov, November 16, 2006

Position analysis - very important skill for chess players of any level. Many players analyze positions almost spontaneously , without a clearly defined plan.

They do not have a framework with which to systematically approach the analysis of positions.

The result is incomplete analysis and many missed opportunities. In this article we are going to change that. We will offer a simple and easy to follow plan for analyzing all your games.

The material on the board is one of the most important elements for analyzing a position. Other things being equal, the side with more material always has an advantage. Therefore, I recommend starting your assessment of any position by examining the material on both sides. It's very easy to do.

You can either compare figures “by head” (for example, 2 horses, elephant, 5 pawns And rook against 2 elephants, horse, 5 pawns And rooks) or by points (“pawns”) (for example, 19 points against 19 points)

Although material advantage is a very important factor to keep in mind when analyzing a position, it cannot tell us everything that is happening on the board.

If you have an extra rook but get checkmate in a couple of moves, it would be stupid to say that you have an advantage.

Therefore, it is necessary to take into account the position of the king (or, more precisely, his safety) taking into account all possible threats, mating attacks, etc.

You can quickly check the safety of the king by comparing the pawn structure and counting the number of defending pieces versus the number of attacking pieces.

Tip: To improve your game, you need to not only study the opening, but also focus on positional understanding and endgame play. If you want to play endings well, I suggest checking out where we study a lot of common endings. After studying these materials, you will no longer have to guess about the winning approach. You will simply apply a refined technique:

Piece activity is the ability to create threats, control important squares on the chessboard (e.g. weak ones) and/or the ability to move freely around the board. This is very important element, which should be taken into account when analyzing a position, especially when other factors such as the material balance and the king's safety appear to be equal.

To compare the activity of the figures for both sides, you need to take each white figure and compare it with the black copy. For example, a white knight can control 3 cells while black controls 4 .

This means that the black horse is more active. However, if the white knight controls 3 squares near the opponent's king, and the black knight controls 4 on opposite side board, we will consider the white knight more active, because it's more useful.

Control diagonals(especially long) bishops and queens often play a decisive role in an attack on the opponent’s position.

The side that has such control certainly has some positional advantage, all other things being equal.

Center control (fields e4-d4-e5-d5) is another important element to consider when evaluating a position. The importance of the center comes from the fact that it provides more opportunities for attack and also reduces the possibility of your opponent counterattacking.

The side that owns the center often has more active pieces, as well as a safer king position.

Space control allows you to arrange your pieces more efficiently attacking/defensive position and at the same time prevent your opponent from doing the same.

You can estimate how much space each side has by counting the number of squares controlled by pieces and pawns on the opponent's side.

Typically, the side with the spatial advantage must attack and put pressure on the enemy's position. Because It is difficult to coordinate the work of the figures due to lack of space.

Attack immediately several purposes often decides the game as your opponent is unable to reorganize their defense due to space constraints.

Pawn structure is closely related to space, center control and strong/weak fields. At the same time, you should also pay attention to weak pawns, such as backward, isolated, doubled, etc.

You can also download this cheat sheet in pdf format to help you remember the steps to evaluate positions.

Note: If you are aiming for sharp increase in chess level, then it is necessary to systematically work on all elements of the game:

• Tactics
• Positional play
• Attack Skills
• Endgame technique
• Analysis classic games
• Psychological preparation
• And much more

At first glance, it seems like there is a lot of work to be done. But thanks to our training course Your training will be easy, efficiently and with minimal time. Join the "" training program right now!

Chess Game analysis using chess engines
Part one
translated Russian by Google
Chess game analysis
Using ChessBase Engines
(Part one)
Steve Lopez
Explosion chess programs have been providing many positive benefits to chess players for the past fifteen years, not the least of which is the ability to play chess at any time of one's choosing. You don't have to wait for weekly meetings chess Club or take a chess set to the park in hopes of getting some 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 I bought my first computer back in the early 1990s was to gain access to this feature. I've been playing chess and studying chess books for years, but have never had the experience of someone looking at my games and showing me where I went wrong. After I purchased a computer and some chess programs and began using them to analyze my play, I learned a lot about my own shortcomings as a player. I decided to fix these problems and my board scores improved significantly.
In this short series of articles, I'll show you how to do the same. Although specific step-by-step instructions will apply to using chess engines within the ChessBase Chess Interface program (used byFritz, Hiarcs, Junior, Shredder, Rybki, 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 the game. Analysis of the features of using the "Full Analysis" feature in the ChessBase production playing program interface. In the second article we'll discuss using the same interface's "Blundercheck" feature, which also provides a full game analysis with the output appearing in a slightly more complex (but also more useful) form. In the last article we'll talk about practical applications of chess program feedback, such as how to use this information to help you improve your own playing skills.

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

Full analysis
Once you have chosen 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), and 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. Secondly, you need to remember to manually save the game to the database after the analysis is complete.
Instead, I recommend the following procedures (which actually saves a couple of steps anyway). First load the database in which you have saved the game you want to analyze - hit F12 to open the game list window, and if the correct database is not shown, go to File / Open / Database to select the correct one. Once you have downloaded the appropriate database, finding 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. Doing this will display the following dialog:

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. Although this dialog may look complicated at first glance, it is actually very easy to use. Let's look at the different sections of this dialog and explore what these options do.

Calculation of time and thresholds
The first thing you should consider is the "Timing" and "Threshold" options. Generally, the more time you allow your engine to calculate deeper ("further ahead") it will appear in that position - and you will therefore have a better analysis in response. However, there are potential disadvantages to setting the timing calculation either too high or too low.
First we have to understand what timing actually means. The value in this field is specified in seconds. If you set this value to, say, "30", this means that your chess engine should (theoretically) analyze each move in the game for about thirty seconds on average. In practice, however, it does not work this way. Setting the value to "30" does not mean that the program will stop analysis when it hits the thirty-second mark and drops the best option, it is in the game score. What this means is that when the thirty-second character is reached the program will complete the analysis of the current depth layer before providing its analysis and moving on to the next move. If the program has just started, say, the tenth layer on the twenty-eight second mark it may take two minutes or more before it finishes evaluating that tenth layer and moves on to the next move.

So we can understand why setting the calculation time parameters too high can be a disadvantage - it can 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.
The appropriate settings will vary from machine to machine and will require some experimentation on your part to discover. Game analysis of a chess engine is best done overnight - it's going to take several hours for the program to provide decent quality analysis (six hours isn't 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 image above). If you find that your program completes the analysis quite quickly (say, within two hours on the 40th move of the game), you'll want to bump up Timing. However, if you start the analysis process, go to bed, returns at eight o'clock, and the program is still analyzing the middlegame of a 40-move game, you will need to reduce the Timing parameter accordingly.

The threshold is given in increments of 1/100th of a pawn - in other words, the threshold value of "1" is 0.01 pawns. Threshold allows you to control how much analysis the chess engine provides and the circumstances under which it will show you the best move. As it 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 better by 0.75 pawns").
The threshold shows the difference between the best line the game 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 alternative 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 beginning chess player I recommend the value "100", this will force the program to show you tactical blunders where you have lost a specific material (eg a pawn or more). It's unlikely that a beginning player will be able to understand why a particular move is better than a fractional pawn value, and beginning players need to focus on tactics anyway, so the "100" setting will work quite nicely, showing you the tactical mistakes you've made.
For intermediate and advanced players I usually recommend a value of 30. Strong chess players and experts computer chess Usually the loss of tempo is estimated to be equivalent to about a third of a pawn. Using a value of "30" will show these types of temporary loss of positional error (as well as any other significant errors of a positional nature).

Some players use very low values ​​(eg "1"), but I don't find this to be very useful. If you play " perfect game"(as if such a thing really existed), most of the moves you play can be improved by a chess engine of 0.05 to 0.10 pawns, and that is simply too close a shave for most human players to gain any significant benefit from.

Other options
Once you have set the "Timing" and "Threshold" parameters, it's time to move on to 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. "Remove 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 graphical comment to the game (or any other previously annotated game selected), this checkbox will cause such comment to be deleted - so use this switch wisely.
Returning to the top of the list, "Verbose" means that the program will add some regular language verbal commentary to the game. It's important to note that this commentary is very rudimentary - the program will not give a nine-point dissertation on why you were unable to correctly work with Maroczy's structure to bind your opponent's pawns. We'll show an example of a verbal comment to the program a little later.

"Graphical" means that the program will display colored arrows and squares on the board where it deems such commentary necessary. This usually takes the form of showing weak squares (by the coloring of them), or a control square (for example, you might see many arrows in an isolated pawn, indicating the pieces that attack and defend that pawn).
"Training" allows a program created to focus on training issues at critical points in the game. These are usually in the form of tactics problems in which you are asked to find the best move in a 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 have had the analysis program.

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

In this picture you can see where the program added three alternative variations 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 reference database).
Please note that when selecting a reference database, the database you select must have an opening key attached to it in order for this feature to work properly. I've also found that the feature works best if the reference database is one containing the opening-only games used in the game being analyzed - otherwise the program sometimes crashes into annotations at the very beginning of a game that are from other, unrelated openings.
You can select any or all of the options in the Notes section; selecting one does not "override" any others.

The radio buttons in the "Side" window are self-explanatory - you can choose to have the chess engine analyze both players moving or only one player moving. My strong suggestion 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 select one option in the Seed, choosing an option here prevents you from selecting 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 option (for example, if you have a game analysis program #320 in the database, the old game #320 will be replaced A new version). "Add" means that the program will add the game to the database, "tacking it on" as last game in the game database list (for example, you are analyzing game #320 in the 2474 game database. The program will analyze Game #320, leave the current #320 untouched, and add its analyzed game to the database as the 2475th match in 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
Once you have set the parameters and selected options in this dialog, click the "OK" button and the chess engine will begin to analyze your game. The display screen will change from the "game list" window to the main chessboard screen. This step is currently being evaluated and is highlighted in the panel label 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. Once the program finds the best changes, it will insert them into the game and score as many variations as possible. When the analysis process ends, the program will return to the database "game list" display (if you started the analysis process from the game list, as I recommended above), the highlighting cursor of the newly annotated game is how you'll know the process will be completed.
When the analysis is complete, double click on the game score to load the game. You will notice that the program often uses symbolic commentary to show its assessment of the proposed changes and moves to actually play. To understand the analysis, you must know what these symbols mean:

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

Here we see an interesting phenomenon: the chess engine will sometimes show faint lines to illustrate a point. In this graphic we see that this move was actually played, 18.cxd5 leaves white with a significant lead. But if White had captured the black d5 pawns with the rook rather than (18.Rxd5), he would only be left with an equal game after Black's response 18...a5.
Here's a screenshot 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 commentary text (created because we selected "Verbose" as the "annotation" option) is very brief and is primarily intended 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 program's comment text simply alerts us to points at which one player is in trouble (white moves 21 and 23). And sometimes the program will use text to indicate places where the player can improve his game (such as changing White's 31 moves).
Now that we know how the "Full Analysis" option works in the chess program interface, we will look at the method " fine tuning" Analyze 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 article series, we looked at the "Full Analysis" function 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 may have gone wrong in your game. The second form of analysis is called "Blundercheck", and is in many ways similar to the "Full Analysis" function. "Blundercheck" will analyze your games and show you where you (and your opponent) made mistakes, but its output is in digital rather than verbal form. This is the traditional chess analysis display mode; it's been around since the first commercial PC chess software appeared in 1980. This traditional numerical analysis is, in many ways, a much more accurate method of analysis in that it will show you the exact (down to 1/100th of a 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 the 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 intended as a way for advanced players to check their own analysis, for example a chess writer might annotate a game and use "Blundercheck" to show errors in his variations as a means of "double checking" his work for "blunders" in in his analysis. But "Blundercheck" is much more useful as a means for average players to get a more accurate idea of ​​what the chess engine is showing them.
Let's first show how to create and use the "Blundercheck" function, then we will descibe the engine power. Just like in the previous article for the "full analysis", we will follow similar first steps to get to the "Blundercheck" dialog. After launching your ChessProgram interface, press F3 and select the chess engine you want to use for analysis. After selecting the engine, press F12 to open the game list window. If the proper database is not displayed, go to the File menu and select Open/Databases 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.
Once 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 "Analysis" 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 advice to always use "AND" - the program works much better in this mode, and it will also alert you to mistakes that your opponent has made (and that you might would be punished).
"Storage" was also discussed in a 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 will be presented as annotation text - that is, they will look strictly like text and the text will not be automatically replayable on the chessboard when you familiarize yourself with the game. Therefore I strongly 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 the 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 setup Here "Depth", the engine will always analyze the layer depth that you set in this field - never less, never 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"; using the latter often results in short changes that are cut off in a "forcing" line (eg in a series of checks or grabs).
"Threshold" works in "Blundercheck" mode exactly as it does in "Full Analysis" and the same recommendations apply here.

A series of checkboxes follows "Threshold" and gives you a good bit of latitude in how the chess engine will display its output. "Write a complete variation" 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 games. If you uncheck this box, 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 asking: "Why was it better to move?" Therefore, I encourage you to keep this checkbox so that you see the "observations" moving to better than the initial movement.

"Remove old annotations" works in the same way as "Full Analysis" and applies to previously annotated games, the program will delete everything up to annotations from gamescore.
"Training" was described in a previous article; it allows the program to generate timed training questions as part of its analysis. This tends to happen about every twenty to twenty-four games on average.

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

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

Note that Fritz (the chess engine used to analyze this particular game) inserted five point variations into the game on which he found the best move for any player (based on the "Threshold" setting provided when the analysis parameters were set). It is interesting to note that the only text in the annotation reads: “The Last Move Book.” This means that 4.Be2 was last step, which was found in the opening of the book that was loaded while the analysis was started. Black's answer, 4...a6, was not found in the opening of the book.
To understand the numerical analysis of a 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 the white's 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 a 94/100ths pawn advantage (0.94) after Black's actual move of 17...exd5, meaning that White is almost a full pawn ahead according to the chess engines. But Black could improve on this game with 17...Bxc3. The program continues to give a recommended option in which it suggests the best to play for both sides. After this sequence of moves that ends with 22.Qc4, White will still enjoy a 44/100ths advantage of the pawn - but note that this advantage is significantly less than after the actual move of the game. With 17...Bxc3, White was almost a full pawn ahead, but in the change after 17...Bxc3, White's advantage would have been 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 this 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 improve his play.

We can easily see how accurate this information is compared to the Full Analysis output. While "Full 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 estimate. Therefore, "Blundercheck" is well suited for beginners or inexperienced players, while intermediate and advanced players will enjoy and benefit from the accuracy of the analysis provided by "Blundercheck".

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

(Part three)
Steve Lopez
In this part, the final installment in a three-part series of articles, we will look at how you will use a chess engine (such as Fritz, Rybka, Shredder, Junior, and Hiarcs) to help you improve at chess. This won't be a software tutorial as such, we won't be looking at "click on x to make y happen" instructions, since we covered those in the two previous articles. We are instead exploring how you will use the output generated by the game's analysis features to help you improve your chess.
Someone once said that "the first step to knowledge is to admit your ignorance", a statement that certainly applies here. In order to benefit from having a chess engine analyze your games, you first need to make the (possibly painful) recognition that there is a lot about chess that you don't know but need to learn. Over the years, I have spoken with more than one user of chess programs who have used function analysis as an "ego booster", admiring the moves that the chess engine considers "correct", while ignoring the bad 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 needs improvement - there is no other way.

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

Contrary to what several development companies would have you believe, no piece of chess software by itself is guaranteed to improve your chess performance. I understand that more than a few players are looking for a "magic bullet": one book or part software, which, in itself, force the player into a sort of “master moment.” Sorry, but it's a slim hope that it just won't happen. What we, as players and 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 in chess is actually a three-step cycle of processes:
Practice
Analysis
Study
No one piece of software will help you in all three areas. Chess game programs excel at helping you with practice (you can play the games at any convenient time) and analysis (you can also have engines analyze your game in your free time). Although some chess programs contain tutorials on various aspects of chess, these are usually aimed at absolute beginners and inexperienced players. For more high level instructions are suitable for intermediate players, you need to turn to books and specialized chess training software. This brings us to one more important point. Chess books and chess programs are not mutually exclusive; it is quite easy to combine chess books and software, using the best of both environments to develop effective training. We'll come back to this idea in a moment. First, however, we must look at the "Learning Cycle" to understand the three processes.

Practice refers to any chess game you play. Within the curriculum, "practice" doesn't just mean games that "don't count" (such as games against the computer or impromptu games you play for 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 under actual game conditions. Any time you play chess (as opposed to tactics puzzle solving or "checkmate at 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, examining them to discover flaws in your game. While it's always nice to look at the three-move combination that won your 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's ironic that chess has a reputation as a game for egoists, because there are few 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 methods in order to correct one's shortcomings. "Research" can mean reading a book on positional chess, solving a tactics problem with a chess CD and/or analyzing the games of great chess players; it is any action we take to increase our knowledge of the "nuts and bolts" of our own way of playing chess.

Good day, dear friend!

Computers have been playing stronger than humans for a long time. The best chess programs, and even more so, it is impossible even for the strongest chess players to directly compete with them on equal terms.

However, the “iron monster” is not as big and powerful as you might think. Him There is weak spots and disadvantages . Which a chess player of any level simply must take into account.

More on this at the end of the article, but for now let’s look inside the computer for a second and review the best engines and user interfaces.

What's inside?

A computer program (engine) is a counting unit. He counts, operates with numbers and does not understand at all what chess is .

The program translates the chess language into mathematical operations. Adds, subtracts and compares numbers. At the end of each option he gives a numerical rating.

This is how chess engines work.

Engines

There are also competitions between engines, consisting of a large number of games, much larger than between humans. Based on the results, rating lists are compiled.

Engine rating 2016

Komodo

Komodo ranks first in most rankings. The interesting thing is that the Komodo differs in its brains from most of its brothers.

He has learned to better evaluate a position and places more emphasis on evaluation and less on depth of calculation.

Perhaps this is the secret. The engine combines the best qualities of man and machine. However, these are my suggestions, which, of course, are not the ultimate truth

The latest commercial version of the engine is 11.2 . Komodo 9 and older versions are offered for free distribution.

You can download it at publisher's main portal

Stockfish

This is the logo. Stockfish literally means dried fish. Where does this allegory come from - I don’t presume to judge

Stokish has been competing lately with Komodo And Houdini and is ahead of its rivals in a number of indicators

Stockfish's success owes much to its distribution policy. Having created a boost, the developers release the version for testing to all users. Perhaps for this reason there are almost no serious bugs left.

The program is free. The most latest version- eight. You can download it here: https://stockfishchess.org/download/

But that is not all. It is difficult to use an engine without an interface for practical purposes .

Shells and client programs

In order to use the capabilities of the engine and see its work, you need a shell, an interface. Custom chess program(shell) plus an engine (or several) - this is a finished product suitable for human use.

I will give examples of the best, in my opinion, shells and client programs:

Arena

One of the most famous and powerful programs. Can be used as a user interface, wrapper for almost all the best engines

You can download/install it on the official Arena website.

Chessbase

Perhaps the most advanced analytical program known to the author.

ChessBase provides all the necessary analytical tools and can:

• Work with game databases - watch played games and analyze
• Conduct a search according to certain parameters: openings, positions, material ratio, endgames and more.
• Upload your games, with comments and cards
• Analyze by selecting different engines
• Create player dossiers based on databases
• Print batches and charts in various configurations

And also much more.

Latest version of the program – ChessBase-13

Shredder Classic 3

One of the best chess engines Shredder complete with interface.

• Possibility of playing both with the engine at different levels, and online with real opponents

• Choice of time controls, ability to create your own control.
• Analysis of both parties and positions

• Interface setup: design of the board and pieces, etc. figures, etc. further.

The full version is not free. To get started, you can download the shareware version.

Chess planet

A specialized program associated with the portal http://chessplanet.ru/, where you can play online, in tournaments, by correspondence, play by correspondence. There are competitions and a lot of interesting things.

The client program is installed on the user’s computer and provides the opportunity to play, chat on the forum, view and analyze games, watch lessons, and more.

There is also a simplified version where you can play in a browser without installing a client program on your computer.

You can install the client and get acquainted with the portal in more detail.

BabasChess

Multilingual interface (though I couldn’t find Russian) for playing via the Internet.

Combines ease of use and a fairly wide range of functions. This is what captivates.

Runs on Windows. Can also work on Linux

For training

For beginner chess players and for training, in my opinion, it is better to use multidisciplinary chess portals or an online school.

However, there are also stand-alone programs. For example, on a smartphone you can install:

Chess training - from simple to complex

Something like a navigator in the world of chess. The application will show you the basic rules and give tips on how to improve the game.

The training course contains more hundreds topics Including basic techniques and typical combinations. More 1000 various examples.

You can find out more and install Here

Don't believe your eyes

The best chess engines are already partly “humanized” and are similar to people in terms of evaluating positions. However, they are also wrong. And rudely.

Just one example, the simplest one:

Position “on the board” is drawn and this is known to most chess players, not just masters. And it’s not difficult to guess - the black king sits in the corner and it’s impossible to smoke him out of there. Neither checkmate nor advance a pawn. And pressed in the corner - stalemate.

So, most engines, even the most modern ones, evaluate this position as won for White. Stockfish gives +7 . If you don't believe me, you can check it yourself.

In fact, I could give about a dozen such examples when the machine makes a gross mistake in assessing a position. I don’t know why this happens, but a fact is a fact.

Hence the conclusion: When deifying the computer, it would not be amiss to remember that “even an old woman can get screwed” . It turns out that we are not the only ones who check our calculations using a computer. Sometimes the reverse process is required. That's it.

Thank you for your interest in the article.

If you found it useful, please do the following:

• Share with your friends by clicking on the social media buttons.
• Write a comment (at the bottom of the page)
• Subscribe to blog updates (form under the social media buttons) and receive articles in your email.