Wednesday, January 20, 2010
We are creatures of habit and our results are what we get from being that way. Most of us are lazy in that regard. We make rumor a "fact." Right now Rybka is THE analysis program. It's available both on the Convekta/Chess Assistant and ChessBase platforms.
A short while back Rybka had this 3000+ Elo and had won the world computer chess championship. It became the darling of stronger chess players, writers, and analysts. Yet, ChessBase's flagship program, Fritz, was being used by most amateurs (and ChessBase itself online). But it does pay to investigate other programs. (By the way, Fritz does have some advantages over Rybka.)
ChessBase announced recently the availability of Shredder 12 multi-processor (i.e., Deep Shredder). I've used the regular Shredder many times in the past because it tended to be more aggressive in unclear situations than Fritz was. However, there were times when I felt Shredder's evaluations were overly optimistic and unprovable.
Apparently Shredder is NOW more precise in its evaluations says author Stefan Meyer Kahlen. CB also says it is 100 points higher in Elo strength (so... what would that make it then?).
I think it would be worth investigating Deep Shredder this time if you have a multi-processor computer system (and they are becoming more and more common). More accuracy, more aggression, a higher-Elo, and a revised and expanded opening book... give it some thought, try it and let me know your results if you will. I published similar information by Lazaro Munoz in issue #97 of The Chess Reports.
You can get it from G&L CHESS (that's me) by writing to firstname.lastname@example.org -- I am not sure of the delivered price but will let you know.
I am serious, don't keep assuming that Deep Rybka is the Big Boy on the block. I have to order it because I am no fool. I could keep it on hand but at the risk of never selling it because of what I wrote in the first paragraph about "creatures of habit."
A little side note: I use analysis engines in my writings, publishings, and thinking. I don't always agree with them. I assume other writers use them too (and some don't use them very well). I don't see the point of invoking, continually, like some do, the name of the analysis engine they use. Even the GMs use these in their writings--and we must assume they all do nowadays. It might be easier for a writer to say instead: "This was MY idea!"