Main
Date: 07 Apr 2005 17:40:42
From: Mike Leahy
Subject: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
Learn how to get games off the web that match your opening and then study
them with systematic training.

http://www.bookup.com/chessvideo10c.htm <-- web video

Then visit www.chessopeningspgn.com to grab all the games you want.

The program, video and games are all free. I built the site (above) so that
*I* could get games faster and easier for myself. :)


Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"
www.bookup.com






 
Date: 26 Apr 2005 13:04:02
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
>From: "Mike Leahy" <[email protected]> - Find messages by
this author
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:05:53 GMT
Local: Mon,Apr 25 2005 12:05 pm
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
Reply


  
Date: 09 May 2005 15:56:56
From: Komputer Korner
Subject: question to mike Leahy
Mike, I lost my 7 year old Bookup program because my old computer died and I
moved and lost all my chess programs so I don't have any programs except
Shredder9 which I just bought. I suspect that Bookup's EPD format is a lot
faster than ChessBase's ctg format because to add a move on a 2.8GHZ
computer to a Chessbase opening tree takes about 10 minutes. Can you confirm
that Bookup can handle trees as large as the Fritz powerbooks and that it
won't take 10 minutes to add a new move. The next question is does Bookup
2005 have a large opening book as large as the Fritz powerbooks? And does
the Training Wizard in Bookup analyze positions?
Komputer Korner


"k Houlsby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>From: "Mike Leahy" <[email protected]> - Find messages by
this author
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:05:53 GMT
Local: Mon,Apr 25 2005 12:05 pm
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
Reply


 
Date: 26 Apr 2005 12:12:15
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
"k Houlsby" <[email protected] > wrote in message


news:[email protected]


>> > It's more accurate to say IMHO that these programs have different
>>> intentions
>>> and purposes.

>> Maybe so, but IMHO those intentions and purposes seem to overlap to
>> such an extent that BookUp is playing CatchUp. I might be wrong of
>> course. What are those twelve features?



>Most of them are in the areas of Backsolving
www.bookup.com/backsolv.htm

.=2E.which we've already covered....

>the "Power Tools" (novelty finding in particular)

.=2E.ChessBase does that. It's not much use to me, however...

>the Training Wizaard www.bookup.com/training_wizard=AD.htm overnight
analysis using EPD files

.=2E.we've already covered this, too...

>To say nothing of actually being able to reach the programmer. :)

Yes, I agree that *that* is a pretty cool feature! :-P

One may email those nice folks at ChessBase, too, of course....



> > > > Bookup currently handles tablebases
> > > by using Crafty as an engine.

> > > Cool.
> > > >While I've not done a head to head comparison of Fritz8 opening
> > > > training
> > > > with that of Bookup, owners of both have told me that Bookup is

> way
> > > > ahead in
> > > > that area.


> > > > This seems not to be impossible to believe, but might be more
> >credible
> > > > if you could clearly demonstrate that using BookUp is
significantly
> > > > more effective than using Fritz8. Can you cite any examples of,

> say,
> > > > someone's having told you of their having become a GM/IM/FM/NM
> largely
> > > > because of their having used BookUp?


> > >You've evidently missed the endorsements on our site. :)


> > Fair point. I've read those only just now. GM Svidler is a
world-class
> > player, to be sure (as well as being a most amiable individual). I
can
> > understand why a super-GM, such as he is, might find BookUp useful.

> > Unlike me, he actually has a firm grasp of openings. Larry Stevens
I
> > don't know, but that is undoubtedly more a reflection of my
ignorance
> > than of anything else... I'm sure he's a good player.


> > It's interesting to me that Michael Bennett uses BookUp, as he
says,
> > mostly for endgame training. This is precisely what Fritz does,
> > extremely well (which, evidently, you didn't know until I told
you).
> > Indeed, with Fritz, there's the added benefit of being able to use
the
> > CD-ROM version of Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (which is in ChessBase

> > format).


> > > > I still don't get this, I fear....(ok, so I'm dumber than a bag
of
> > > > hammers, but gimme a break, will ya?)


> > > It's not a case of having an IQ around that of hammers,


> > Would that mine were that high :-P


> > > but few of us
> > > actually do the specialized research the top players do with game

> databases
> > > to prepare their openings, and only a few of those players have
> considered
> > > that other software (Bookup?) can do that research.


> > Maybe it can do that research, but, as I've argued elsewhere, its
being
> > able to do
> > such research may be of no use to a patzer such as I am, *because I

> > don't understand
> > what's going on in the opening*.



> I'd suggest you get an ebook in Bookup format and begin understanding
what's
> going on in the opening. Using research by others has certainly
already
> helped you in the area of endgames, using your example of Dvoretsky's

> research.

With respect to studying *endgames*, yes, it's a good idea for me or
for anyone.

For openings, on the other hand, I tried getting a BookUp e-book. More
than one, even.
I'm still a patzer :-P

> > > Most club players are quite happy to get the Express version of
> Bookup and a
> > > favorite ebook and learn an opening faster than any other way
they
> know.

> > I take it that you mean: "Most of those club players who use
it...".
> > Most club players I know
> > (those who own a PC or a Mac) if they have any chess software at
all,
> > either have only CM9K or something similar, or they have ChessBase
> and/or Fritz...



> Yes, I'd recommend that you not only get the Express version... but
use it too. :)

What good would it do me? Where's the *evidence* that *any* club player
has become any kind of *master* as a result of their having used BookUp
*when they were a patzer*?

> > I remain to be convinced that BookUp enables them to learn openings
so
> > effectively that they become
> > significantly better players more quickly than they would by other
> > means....


> The proof is in the pudding. The proof is not in this thread.

Ok. *Cite* some *former club players* who attribute at least a part of
their success in having *become* *masters* to their having used BookUp
*when they were patzers*.

> Even if 100 grandmasters credited their opening success to Bookup, I
get the
feeling you would still excuse yourself as a patzer with an IQ of a
hammer.

I said that I'm dumber than a *bag* of hammers. I *could* be ster
than a single hammer, if it was a low achiever....

> If you're looking for a list of C players who rocketed to grandmaster
by
> using certain software, I don't think any software maker will have
the list
> you're looking for.

Bingo! That's precisely what I've been arguing! There is *no point* in
patzers' using BookUp (or, indeed any other software or any books) to
study openings. It follows, therefore, that it is a *waste of money*
for patzers to *buy* BookUp (and, indeed, to buy books about openings,
unless perhaps it's something like "Opening Play" by GM Chris Ward,
which I own, have read, and even understand in part--being the
intelligent guy that he is, Ward is frequently *vague* in the *general*
advice which he imparts in OP ["Castle early-ish" is a typical example
of his vagueness]. This is presumably because *he understands* that we
patzers *don't understand* the concrete stuff which is what Kotov's
"Think Like A Grandmaster" discusses).

> You will remain unconvinced, but remaining unconvinced
> won't do much for your understanding of the opening.

Indeed it won't, but then neither, paradoxically, will my studying
openings. Studying endgames and tactics might help.

k



 
Date: 14 Apr 2005 22:37:58
From: John J.
Subject: I don't understand....
You say it's free and then the web site says it's $29.00 . What gives?

It's either 'free' or not.'

John
"Mike Leahy" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Learn how to get games off the web that match your opening and then study
> them with systematic training.
>
> http://www.bookup.com/chessvideo10c.htm <-- web video
>
> Then visit www.chessopeningspgn.com to grab all the games you want.
>
> The program, video and games are all free. I built the site (above) so
> that
> *I* could get games faster and easier for myself. :)
>
>
> Mike Leahy
> "The Database Man!"
> www.bookup.com
>
>




  
Date: 19 Apr 2005 12:53:29
From: Mike Leahy
Subject: Re: I don't understand....
Good point, John. You can download Bookup 2000 Express and it will works
forever for free. A great demonstration video (that I did pursposefully
with the program in it's "free" mode) is at...
http://www.bookup.com/chessvideo10.htm

For the first 30 days you also get instant editing features and use of the
Training Wizard that intelligently chooses which lines you need to study and
review if necessary. Register the program for $29 and you get that and
more, also forever.

The Professional version for $129 adds even more features and functions.
You can also add on more than $700 in ebooks.

So to answer your question, it is both free... and not. :)


Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"

"John J." <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]nado.tampabay.rr.com...
> You say it's free and then the web site says it's $29.00 . What gives?
>
> It's either 'free' or not.'
>
> John
> "Mike Leahy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > Learn how to get games off the web that match your opening and then
study
> > them with systematic training.
> >
> > http://www.bookup.com/chessvideo10c.htm <-- web video
> >
> > Then visit www.chessopeningspgn.com to grab all the games you want.
> >
> > The program, video and games are all free. I built the site (above) so
> > that
> > *I* could get games faster and easier for myself. :)
> >
> >
> > Mike Leahy
> > "The Database Man!"
> > www.bookup.com
> >
> >
>
>
>




   
Date: 05 May 2005 22:26:08
From: Komputer Korner
Subject: Re: I don't understand....
Mike, does Bookup have an engine that will evaluate lines. Is that what the
Training Wizard does? if so what is the engine behind the training wizard? I
am getting disappointed with the ChessBase tree. I just bought Shredder 9
and it crashes whenever I try to add a new move or an evaluation to the
book.

Komputer Korner



"Mike Leahy" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Good point, John. You can download Bookup 2000 Express and it will works
> forever for free. A great demonstration video (that I did pursposefully
> with the program in it's "free" mode) is at...
> http://www.bookup.com/chessvideo10.htm
>
> For the first 30 days you also get instant editing features and use of the
> Training Wizard that intelligently chooses which lines you need to study
and
> review if necessary. Register the program for $29 and you get that and
> more, also forever.
>
> The Professional version for $129 adds even more features and functions.
> You can also add on more than $700 in ebooks.
>
> So to answer your question, it is both free... and not. :)
>
>
> Mike Leahy
> "The Database Man!"
>
> "John J." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > You say it's free and then the web site says it's $29.00 . What gives?
> >
> > It's either 'free' or not.'
> >
> > John
> > "Mike Leahy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> > > Learn how to get games off the web that match your opening and then
> study
> > > them with systematic training.
> > >
> > > http://www.bookup.com/chessvideo10c.htm <-- web video
> > >
> > > Then visit www.chessopeningspgn.com to grab all the games you want.
> > >
> > > The program, video and games are all free. I built the site (above)
so
> > > that
> > > *I* could get games faster and easier for myself. :)
> > >
> > >
> > > Mike Leahy
> > > "The Database Man!"
> > > www.bookup.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>




 
Date: 14 Apr 2005 05:27:28
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
"k Houlsby" <[email protected] > wrote in message


news:[email protected]


> > It seems to me that most other GMs download TWIC every week, and
use
> > ChessBase in their daily work... To me, this suggests that for 80%
of
> > GMs, their doing these things is all of the "theory machine" they
> > appear to need. Would you agree with that assessment, even if,
clearly
> > (and possibly with good reason) you believe that they might be
better
> > off using BookUp?


> Some may be better off using Bookup, but my guess of 20 percent is
just a
guess.

You didn't answer my question. I acknowledged your belief that BookUp
may be good for them (I even
acknowledged that it may, indeed, be good for them) but I asked whether
you agreed that *by your estimate*
80% seem to manage perfectly well without it. Will you answer?


>> >>Around
>> >>ten years ago there was a section in Informator headed: "Practice
>> >>corrects the estimations" which gave examples, from master play,
of
>> >>"established" evaluations' having been overturned by some new
>> discovery
>> >>in some line or other.

>> >That is the process automated by Bookup.


>> Wow.


>> >>It seems to me to come down to this: how accurate and/or effective

>> does
>> >>one consider backsolving combined with the overnight analysis
>> provided
>> >>by any number of engines, on the one hand, in comparison with
looking


>> >>up the theory in the latest Informator or New in Chess Yearbook or

>> >>Russian Chess Review or Correspondence Chess Yearbook or even an
old
>> >>copy of Shakmatny v USSR and conducting analysis oneself, on the
>> other?


>> >That's exactly it. Whether you rely on analysis by an engine or a
GM
>> or
>> >both, it must be accurate and complete or Bookup's backsolving is
>> GIGO.


>> Garbage In, Garbage Out.... hmmm.... might this be the reason why
most
>> GMs seem to prefer to rely upon their *own analysis* rather than
that
>> generated by a "theory machine"?


>> Might it also be a reason for those of us who are confirmed patzers
to
>> do likewise?



> No, I'd recommend your analysis be accurate and complete. :)

LOL! Good one! Hammers, Mike, hammers....

> Bookup will
automatically make it obvious where it is inaccurate and/or incomplete.


BookUp has solved chess now?!?!


> >>Very approximately, what percentage of GMs use BookUp in this way
and

> >>to this end, do you think?


>> >I'd guess 20 percent. I wish I could say it was more. Ultimately
>> they're
>> all doing it by hand.


>> Hmmm... yes... GIGO. Hmmmm....


>> >>What use is BookUp to a patzer, such as I am, for whom learning
and
>> >>playing a line provided by BookUp and then hanging my
>> >>knight/bishop/rook/queen/kin=ADg appears no different,
qualitatively,
>> from
>> >>learning and playing a line in a book and then hanging my
>> >>knight/bishop/rook/queen/kin=ADg (been there, done that, got the
t-shirt


>> >>[literally!])?


>> >I think I got that t-shirt also. :) To a patzer, Bookup is a way
to
>> pack
>> *other* players' backsolved ideas into their heads fast.


>> Yes. That's one of my points, I think. I used to memorise quite a
lot
>> of theory, perfectly accurately, and (if I managed to avoid hanging
>> anything) when I reached the end of a line which promised a
>> "comfortable and enduring edge" I'd think to myself: "What *is* my
>> dark-squared bishop *doing* there, exactly...?"


>> What is the point of patzers' getting "*other* players' backsolved
>> ideas" into our heads? Won't it just confuse us even more? Heaven
knows
>> I'm confused enough as it is....



> Indeed, what is the point of studying another player's analysis in,
say, a
printed book?

Exactly! That's *precisely* what I am arguing :-)

> If there is a point to that, then there is a point in using
Bookup to vastly speed up the process.

There's the rub. *If* there is a point to it, then there may be a point
to our using BookUp. *If* on the other hand, we patzers *should not
waste time studying openings, but would be better advised to study
endgames* then Fritz works *better* than BookUp for that, IMHO. You
have brought to my attention an endorsement, on your website, from a
Canadian player named Michael Bennett, whose rating seems not to be a
million miles away from mine, and who uses BookUp for endgame training.
Clearly, BookUp worked for him, and that's great. For me, however,
Fritz/ChessBase is better because, as I have pointed out, it affords
the opportunity not only to do everything that BookUp will do for
endgame training, but also, crucially, to study the CD-ROM edition of
Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, which is very fine, and has already won me
some rating points....

>> > To leave
>> >patzer-dom behind, one must ultimately become brave enough to
create
>> one's
>> >own ideas and improvements and test them. Even if you're wrong,
the
>> act of
>> >analyzing with that much responsibility will make you a better
player,
>> ala
>> >Kotov's rule about publishing one's analysis in _Think Like a
>> Grandmaster_.


>> Do you think that TLAG is good? Really?

> I do. You should read it.

I *have* read it. Twice. I still concur with GM Jon Speelman's succinct
description of it: "xist claptrap".

>> I do agree wholeheartedly with your assertion that it's better to do

>> one's own analysis than to rely on a "theory machine" which is still

>> encumbered by a principle as mundane as "Garbage In, Garbage Out".


> It's only encumbered if you put garbage in. I don't recommend that
approach.
:)

Ah, but how do I recognise Shinola? (Where's Steve tin's Dad when
you need him?!)
More to the point, how can I *understand* it?

>> >>Right, so duplicates are bad then, I'm glad we cleared up that
one.
>> It
>> >>took almost a week, but what the heck....


>> >Duplicates may be "bad" but they don't cause Bookup any problems,
>> unlike
>> with a game database.


>> Sure they do... they slow it down. You just said that. You're not
>> contradicting yourself, are you?



> I did not say they slow it down.

Hmmm.....

"Yes you did, Brett! Yes you did!"
--Jules Winnfield (a.k.a. Samuel L. Jackson) ("Pulp Fiction" dir.
Quentin Tarantino 1994)

In this post:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J4BD212EA

.=2Eyou wrote:

"If the general operation of your HDD
slows down, Bookup will slow down. Any database program would."

I fear that your evident insistence upon contradicting yourself in this
way makes you seem
just ever-so-slightly KEVIN.

>In fact, I said that Bookup would be much
>faster at handling it as the duplicate positions are never written to
the hard drive.

That very well may be, but if the general operation of my PC slows down
then that will tend to cancel out the gain, will it not?

> Again, you can call duplicates "bad" but they do not cause Bookup any

problems in database size or import speed, unlike a game database.

No, but there's a payoff with overall performance. Why waste disk
space?

>> >>Does BookUp feature a facility which identifies and deletes
>> duplicates
>> >>(like, say, the one that ChessBase provides)?

>> >No. In fact, Bookup was published and used for years before it
even
>> had the
>> ability to store and retrieve games. Deleting duplicates is for a
game
>> database.


>> Aha! Another reason for you to check out the competition? Another
>> reason *not to buy BookUp*? I don't have hard disk space to
waste....



>Again, Bookup was sold and used for many years without ANY game
storage
features.

Right, I got that, but that was then, and this is now.

> By combining the common positions it often saves disk space.

By deleting duplicates ChessBase often saves space, too, just like it
did with the A00 database which I
downloaded from the PGN site in your subject heading....

> Most people don't even use Bookup to store games. I'd recommend
ChessBase
for all things game related, and you can quote me.

Cool.

>> This really is a most enlightening conversation :-)


>Thank you. I'm off to a seminar for the next four days so I'll have
to
>catch up when I get back.

Hope it goes/went well! May I call you by your nickname?

> For more enlightenment try...

>http://www.bookup.com/20q.htm <-- "How is Bookup different from game
databases?

We seem to have covered this in the course of our conversation :-)


>http://www.bookup.com/whybuy.h=ADtm <-- "I already have ChessBase..."

I wonder...was this the esteemed NM Randy Bauer (a regular contributor
to RGC*)?

If so, then he's another example of a st guy who, being a master,
*already has a pretty good grasp of openings*.

Alas, I do not.

k



  
Date: 25 Apr 2005 19:05:53
From: Mike Leahy
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code

"k Houlsby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
"k Houlsby" <[email protected] > wrote in message


news:[email protected]


>You didn't answer my question. I acknowledged your belief that BookUp
>may be good for them (I even
>acknowledged that it may, indeed, be good for them) but I asked whether
>you agreed that *by your estimate*
>80% seem to manage perfectly well without it. Will you answer?

I agree that 100% may seem to manage perfectly well without it. I'd
recommend it to 100% to do even better than managing perfectly well.

>> >>Around
>> >>ten years ago there was a section in Informator headed: "Practice
>> >>corrects the estimations" which gave examples, from master play,
of
>> >>"established" evaluations' having been overturned by some new
>> discovery
>> >>in some line or other.

>> >That is the process automated by Bookup.


>> Wow.

> Bookup will
>automatically make it obvious where it is inaccurate and/or incomplete.


>BookUp has solved chess now?!?!

Bookup's backsolving "solves" all the analysis you put into it and then
backsolve. As you pointed out above, a single new discovery can overturn
years of master practice.

> >>Very approximately, what percentage of GMs use BookUp in this way
and

> >>to this end, do you think?


>> >I'd guess 20 percent. I wish I could say it was more. Ultimately
>> they're
>> all doing it by hand.


>> Hmmm... yes... GIGO. Hmmmm....

I don't see how grandmasters doing backsolving by hand relates to GIGO.

>> >>What use is BookUp to a patzer, such as I am, for whom learning
and
>> >>playing a line provided by BookUp and then hanging my
>> >>knight/bishop/rook/queen/kin­g appears no different,
qualitatively,
>> from
>> >>learning and playing a line in a book and then hanging my
>> >>knight/bishop/rook/queen/kin­g (been there, done that, got the
t-shirt


>> >>[literally!])?


>> >I think I got that t-shirt also. :) To a patzer, Bookup is a way
to
>> pack
>> *other* players' backsolved ideas into their heads fast.


>> Yes. That's one of my points, I think. I used to memorise quite a
lot
>> of theory, perfectly accurately, and (if I managed to avoid hanging
>> anything) when I reached the end of a line which promised a
>> "comfortable and enduring edge" I'd think to myself: "What *is* my
>> dark-squared bishop *doing* there, exactly...?"


>> What is the point of patzers' getting "*other* players' backsolved
>> ideas" into our heads? Won't it just confuse us even more? Heaven
knows
>> I'm confused enough as it is....



> Indeed, what is the point of studying another player's analysis in,
say, a
printed book?

>Exactly! That's *precisely* what I am arguing :-)

I'm still not sure what you are arguing.

I say it's good for patzers to study the analysis of stronger players and
that it does not inherently confuse anyone. Bookup just makes it easer for
patzers to study that analysis and test themselves on it.

> If there is a point to that, then there is a point in using
>Bookup to vastly speed up the process.

>There's the rub. *If* there is a point to it, then there may be a point
>to our using BookUp. *If* on the other hand, we patzers *should not
>waste time studying openings, but would be better advised to study
>endgames* then Fritz works *better* than BookUp for that, IMHO.

Bookup is my most favorite way of studying endgames.

>You have brought to my attention an endorsement, on your website, from a
>Canadian player named Michael Bennett, whose rating seems not to be a
>million miles away from mine, and who uses BookUp for endgame training.
>Clearly, BookUp worked for him, and that's great. For me, however,
>Fritz/ChessBase is better because, as I have pointed out, it affords
>the opportunity not only to do everything that BookUp will do for
>endgame training, but also, crucially, to study the CD-ROM edition of
>Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, which is very fine, and has already won me
>some rating points....

I don't doubt that studying Dvoretsky's work has won you some rating points.
I love his work.

I'm still not sure that Fritz/ChessBase will do everything that Bookup will
do for endgame training.

>> > To leave
>> >patzer-dom behind, one must ultimately become brave enough to
create
>> one's
>> >own ideas and improvements and test them. Even if you're wrong,
the
>> act of
>> >analyzing with that much responsibility will make you a better
player,
>> ala
>> >Kotov's rule about publishing one's analysis in _Think Like a
>> Grandmaster_.


>> Do you think that TLAG is good? Really?

> I do. You should read it.

>I *have* read it. Twice. I still concur with GM Jon Speelman's succinct
>description of it: "xist claptrap".

I'll side with the other grandmasters who think it's required reading.
You'll recall Kotov's story of how he used the method to go from rank master
to top flight GM.

>> I do agree wholeheartedly with your assertion that it's better to do

>> one's own analysis than to rely on a "theory machine" which is still

>> encumbered by a principle as mundane as "Garbage In, Garbage Out".


>> It's only encumbered if you put garbage in. I don't recommend that
>>approach. :)

>Ah, but how do I recognise Shinola? (Where's Steve tin's Dad when
>you need him?!)

I'd recommend checking the source. If Nunn said it, it's probably good. If
Speelman said it, it may be non-Shinola. :)

>More to the point, how can I *understand* it?

Ah, the age old question. I have it that understanding chess is rooted in
the practice of separating Shinola from the lesser stuff. That's why I
learn so much when I use Bookup to pit the contrasting analysis of two or
more strong players.

>> >>Right, so duplicates are bad then, I'm glad we cleared up that
one.
>> It
>> >>took almost a week, but what the heck....


>> >Duplicates may be "bad" but they don't cause Bookup any problems,
>> unlike
>> with a game database.


>> Sure they do... they slow it down. You just said that. You're not
>> contradicting yourself, are you?



> I did not say they slow it down.

>Hmmm.....

>"Yes you did, Brett! Yes you did!"
>--Jules Winnfield (a.k.a. Samuel L. Jackson) ("Pulp Fiction" dir.
>Quentin Tarantino 1994)

>In this post:

>http://makeashorterlink.com/?J4BD212EA

>..you wrote:

>"If the general operation of your HDD
>slows down, Bookup will slow down. Any database program would."

>I fear that your evident insistence upon contradicting yourself in this
>way makes you seem just ever-so-slightly KEVIN.

>>In fact, I said that Bookup would be much
>>faster at handling it as the duplicate positions are never written to the
hard drive.

>That very well may be, but if the general operation of my PC slows down
>then that will tend to cancel out the gain, will it not?

I agree that if the general operation of your PC slows down then every
specific program slows down. This has nothing to do with the fact that
Bookup is not slowed by duplicate games and, again, can be expected to be
way faster than a game database when handling many duplicates.

> Again, you can call duplicates "bad" but they do not cause Bookup any
>problems in database size or import speed, unlike a game database.

>No, but there's a payoff with overall performance. Why waste disk
>space?

I'm not sure what payoff you're talking about. I also don't know why you
mention wasting disk space.

>> >>Does BookUp feature a facility which identifies and deletes
>> duplicates
>> >>(like, say, the one that ChessBase provides)?

>> >No. In fact, Bookup was published and used for years before it
even
>> had the
>> ability to store and retrieve games. Deleting duplicates is for a
game
>> database.


>> Aha! Another reason for you to check out the competition? Another
>> reason *not to buy BookUp*? I don't have hard disk space to waste....


>Again, Bookup was sold and used for many years without ANY game
storage
features.

>Right, I got that, but that was then, and this is now.

Even now, if all game storage features were removed from Bookup, it would
still do many things that are not done by game databases.

Consider that back then - and now - the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings and
the Enclyclopedia of Chess Middlegames and the Encyclopedia of Chess Endings
contain no complete game scores. None. One wouldn't argue that a game
database like the Informant replaces the features of these Encyclopedias.
Neither does ChessBase replace the features of Bookup.

>> By combining the common positions it often saves disk space.

>By deleting duplicates ChessBase often saves space, too, just like it
>did with the A00 database which I
>downloaded from the PGN site in your subject heading....

If 100,000 games start with 1.e4 in ChessBase database, that program stores
the move 100,000 times. A Bookup ebook stores that move and position only
once.

It's not a question of saving disk space. It's a question of what you're
trying to do with these different programs.

>> Most people don't even use Bookup to store games. I'd recommend
>>ChessBase for all things game related, and you can quote me.

>Cool.

>> This really is a most enlightening conversation :-)

>> For more enlightenment try...

>>http://www.bookup.com/20q.htm <-- "How is Bookup different from game
>>databases?

>We seem to have covered this in the course of our conversation :-)


>>http://www.bookup.com/whybuy.h­tm <-- "I already have ChessBase..."

>I wonder...was this the esteemed NM Randy Bauer (a regular contributor
>to RGC*)?

I would guess Yes.

>If so, then he's another example of a st guy who, being a master,
>*already has a pretty good grasp of openings*.

>Alas, I do not.

You might consider using a program recommended by those who do. :)


Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"
www.bookup.com
www.chessopeningspgn.com




 
Date: 14 Apr 2005 04:13:32
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
> > >I've not tried Fritz8 endgame training.


> > OIC. Might I suggest that it may be in your interest to do so,
given
> > that it's one of your main competitors?



> Fritz is hardly a competitor. It is priily a playing program with
some
game database features.

Wrong! It's also an *excellent* endgame trainer and at least a passable
openings trainer (although, to be honest,
I've hardly used that feature - for me, at least, the most effective
method for learning an opening is playing it online....
one quickly encounters all of the usual pitfalls in all but the most
unusual lines....).

> It may sound wise to say that Fritz has shortcomings because it is
not
ChessBase.

...or it may not. The two interlink, as you may know (in Fritz, there
is a Goto ChessBase feature, and vice versa).

> And ChessBase has shortcomings because it can't do a dozen
things that Bookup can do.

May we take all twelve in turn?

> And Bookup has shortcomings because it's not
Fritz.

That and other reasons, maybe....

> It's more accurate to say IMHO that these programs have different
intentions
and purposes.

Maybe so, but IMHO those intentions and purposes seem to overlap to
such an extent that BookUp is playing CatchUp. I might be wrong of
course. What are those twelve features?




> > > Bookup currently handles tablebases
> > by using Crafty as an engine.

> > Cool.


> > >While I've not done a head to head comparison of Fritz8 opening
> > > training
> > > with that of Bookup, owners of both have told me that Bookup is
way
> > > ahead in
> > > that area.


> > This seems not to be impossible to believe, but might be more
credible
> > if you could clearly demonstrate that using BookUp is significantly

> > more effective than using Fritz8. Can you cite any examples of,
say,
> > someone's having told you of their having become a GM/IM/FM/NM
largely
> > because of their having used BookUp?



> You've evidently missed the endorsements on our site. :)

Fair point. I've read those only just now. GM Svidler is a world-class
player, to be sure (as well as being a most amiable individual). I can
understand why a super-GM, such as he is, might find BookUp useful.
Unlike me, he actually has a firm grasp of openings. Larry Stevens I
don't know, but that is undoubtedly more a reflection of my ignorance
than of anything else... I'm sure he's a good player.

It's interesting to me that Michael Bennett uses BookUp, as he says,
mostly for endgame training. This is precisely what Fritz does,
extremely well (which, evidently, you didn't know until I told you).
Indeed, with Fritz, there's the added benefit of being able to use the
CD-ROM version of Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (which is in ChessBase
format).

> > I still don't get this, I fear....(ok, so I'm dumber than a bag of
> > hammers, but gimme a break, will ya?)


> It's not a case of having an IQ around that of hammers,

Would that mine were that high :-P

> but few of us
> actually do the specialized research the top players do with game
databases
> to prepare their openings, and only a few of those players have
considered
> that other software (Bookup?) can do that research.

Maybe it can do that research, but, as I've argued elsewhere, its being
able to do
such research may be of no use to a patzer such as I am, *because I
don't understand
what's going on in the opening*.

> Most club players are quite happy to get the Express version of
Bookup and a
> favorite ebook and learn an opening faster than any other way they
know.

I take it that you mean: "Most of those club players who use it...".
Most club players I know
(those who own a PC or a Mac) if they have any chess software at all,
either have only CM9K or something similar, or they have ChessBase
and/or Fritz...

I remain to be convinced that BookUp enables them to learn openings so
effectively that they become
significantly better players more quickly than they would by other
means....

k



  
Date: 25 Apr 2005 19:21:17
From: Mike Leahy
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code

"k Houlsby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> > It's more accurate to say IMHO that these programs have different
>> intentions
>> and purposes.
>
> Maybe so, but IMHO those intentions and purposes seem to overlap to
> such an extent that BookUp is playing CatchUp. I might be wrong of
> course. What are those twelve features?

Most of them are in the areas of
Backsolving www.bookup.com/backsolv.htm
the "Power Tools" (novelty finding in particular)
www.bookup.com/power_tools.htm
the Training Wizaard www.bookup.com/training_wizard.htm
overnight analysis using EPD files

To say nothing of actually being able to reach the programmer. :)

> > > > Bookup currently handles tablebases
> > > by using Crafty as an engine.
>
> > > Cool.

> > > >While I've not done a head to head comparison of Fritz8 opening
> > > > training
> > > > with that of Bookup, owners of both have told me that Bookup is
> way
> > > > ahead in
> > > > that area.
>
>
> > > This seems not to be impossible to believe, but might be more
> credible
> > > if you could clearly demonstrate that using BookUp is significantly
>
> > > more effective than using Fritz8. Can you cite any examples of,
> say,
> > > someone's having told you of their having become a GM/IM/FM/NM
> largely
> > > because of their having used BookUp?
>
>
>
> > You've evidently missed the endorsements on our site. :)
>
> Fair point. I've read those only just now. GM Svidler is a world-class
> player, to be sure (as well as being a most amiable individual). I can
> understand why a super-GM, such as he is, might find BookUp useful.
> Unlike me, he actually has a firm grasp of openings. Larry Stevens I
> don't know, but that is undoubtedly more a reflection of my ignorance
> than of anything else... I'm sure he's a good player.
>
> It's interesting to me that Michael Bennett uses BookUp, as he says,
> mostly for endgame training. This is precisely what Fritz does,
> extremely well (which, evidently, you didn't know until I told you).
> Indeed, with Fritz, there's the added benefit of being able to use the
> CD-ROM version of Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (which is in ChessBase
> format).
>
> > > I still don't get this, I fear....(ok, so I'm dumber than a bag of
> > > hammers, but gimme a break, will ya?)
>
>
> > It's not a case of having an IQ around that of hammers,
>
> Would that mine were that high :-P
>
> > but few of us
> > actually do the specialized research the top players do with game
> databases
> > to prepare their openings, and only a few of those players have
> considered
> > that other software (Bookup?) can do that research.
>
> Maybe it can do that research, but, as I've argued elsewhere, its being
> able to do
> such research may be of no use to a patzer such as I am, *because I
> don't understand
> what's going on in the opening*.

I'd suggest you get an ebook in Bookup format and begin understanding what's
going on in the opening. Using research by others has certainly already
helped you in the area of endgames, using your example of Dvoretsky's
research.

> > Most club players are quite happy to get the Express version of
> Bookup and a
> > favorite ebook and learn an opening faster than any other way they
> know.
>
> I take it that you mean: "Most of those club players who use it...".
> Most club players I know
> (those who own a PC or a Mac) if they have any chess software at all,
> either have only CM9K or something similar, or they have ChessBase
> and/or Fritz...

Yes, I'd recommend that you not only get the Express version... but use it
too. :)

> I remain to be convinced that BookUp enables them to learn openings so
> effectively that they become
> significantly better players more quickly than they would by other
> means....

The proof is in the pudding. The proof is not in this thread.

Even if 100 grandmasters credited their opening success to Bookup, I get the
feeling you would still excuse yourself as a patzer with an IQ of a hammer.
If you're looking for a list of C players who rocketed to grandmaster by
using certain software, I don't think any software maker will have the list
you're looking for. You will remain unconvinced, but remaining unconvinced
won't do much for your understanding of the opening.


Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"
www.bookup.com




 
Date: 13 Apr 2005 15:43:09
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
Ciao Stefan,

Was ist los?

Are you inviting me to invoke the popular-but-ultimately-ineffective
dodge: "I've gotten a lot of emails..."?

I downloaded CPT a few months back, having discovered it in one of
these groups. I found it cumbersome and somewhat ugly. It seems to
suffer from the same sort of problem that appears to encumber BookUp...


Do you remember the ATARI Jaguar games console?

That was based on "the latest technology" - a state-of-the-art 64-bit
processor, no less. The games *looked awful* and the gameplay was
cumbersome at best, however....

For you, it may be a favourite program, which is fine, and you clearly
stated that because you "don't make really any money from it" you feel
that you have the right to post. It seems to me that *even if you did
make [big] money from it* you'd still enjoy "the right to post". This
is Usenet, for heaven's sake.

However, this thread is principally about BookUp, and, more
specifically, about its [evidently numerous] shortcomings (as I'm sure
you're aware). In the past, Mike has been accused, on numerous
occasions, of spamming. I remain "on the fence" as far as that question
is concerned.

Gru=DF
k

p=2Es. I play frequently on both ICC and playchess.com. ChessBase 8 has a
"novelty feature" which seems to work fine, as you may already know....



 
Date: 13 Apr 2005 15:08:10
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
>>This really is quite an impressive claim! Taken to its extreme, it
>>appears to me that it might just render Informator redundant, if it
>>works as effectively as you seem to be suggesting that it does.


>It certainly is! When the concept was introduced, it was called a
"theory
machine" and it does make Informator antiquated if not redundant.

Hmmm... yet according to the estimate which you make below, about 80%
of GMs
don't know about this "theory machine" of yours, or they don't trust
it, or they simply *prefer* Informator, NiC, RCR, CCYB,... are they all
so Luddite?

I believe I read somewhere (possibly in an old issue of "Chess Monthly"
published in London) that GM Julio Granda Zuniga of Peru, who works
much of the time as a farmer, does not study chess at all, but relies
solely on his (clearly considerable) raw talent.

It seems to me that most other GMs download TWIC every week, and use
ChessBase in their daily work... To me, this suggests that for 80% of
GMs, their doing these things is all of the "theory machine" they
appear to need. Would you agree with that assessment, even if, clearly
(and possibly with good reason) you believe that they might be better
off using BookUp?


>>Around
>>ten years ago there was a section in Informator headed: "Practice
>>corrects the estimations" which gave examples, from master play, of
>>"established" evaluations' having been overturned by some new
discovery
>>in some line or other.


>That is the process automated by Bookup.

Wow.

>>It seems to me to come down to this: how accurate and/or effective
does
>>one consider backsolving combined with the overnight analysis
provided
>>by any number of engines, on the one hand, in comparison with looking

>>up the theory in the latest Informator or New in Chess Yearbook or
>>Russian Chess Review or Correspondence Chess Yearbook or even an old
>>copy of Shakmatny v USSR and conducting analysis oneself, on the
other?


>That's exactly it. Whether you rely on analysis by an engine or a GM
or
>both, it must be accurate and complete or Bookup's backsolving is
GIGO.

Garbage In, Garbage Out.... hmmm.... might this be the reason why most
GMs seem to prefer to rely upon their *own analysis* rather than that
generated by a "theory machine"?

Might it also be a reason for those of us who are confirmed patzers to
do likewise?

>>Very approximately, what percentage of GMs use BookUp in this way and

>>to this end, do you think?


>I'd guess 20 percent. I wish I could say it was more. Ultimately
they're
all doing it by hand.

Hmmm... yes... GIGO. Hmmmm....

>>What use is BookUp to a patzer, such as I am, for whom learning and
>>playing a line provided by BookUp and then hanging my
>>knight/bishop/rook/queen/king appears no different, qualitatively,
from
>>learning and playing a line in a book and then hanging my
>>knight/bishop/rook/queen/king (been there, done that, got the t-shirt

>>[literally!])?


>I think I got that t-shirt also. :) To a patzer, Bookup is a way to
pack
*other* players' backsolved ideas into their heads fast.

Yes. That's one of my points, I think. I used to memorise quite a lot
of theory, perfectly accurately, and (if I managed to avoid hanging
anything) when I reached the end of a line which promised a
"comfortable and enduring edge" I'd think to myself: "What *is* my
dark-squared bishop *doing* there, exactly...?"

What is the point of patzers' getting "*other* players' backsolved
ideas" into our heads? Won't it just confuse us even more? Heaven knows
I'm confused enough as it is....


> To leave
>patzer-dom behind, one must ultimately become brave enough to create
one's
>own ideas and improvements and test them. Even if you're wrong, the
act of
>analyzing with that much responsibility will make you a better player,
ala
>Kotov's rule about publishing one's analysis in _Think Like a
Grandmaster_.

Do you think that TLAG is good? Really?

I do agree wholeheartedly with your assertion that it's better to do
one's own analysis than to rely on a "theory machine" which is still
encumbered by a principle as mundane as "Garbage In, Garbage Out".

<snip >

>>Right, so duplicates are bad then, I'm glad we cleared up that one.
It
>>took almost a week, but what the heck....


>Duplicates may be "bad" but they don't cause Bookup any problems,
unlike
with a game database.

Sure they do... they slow it down. You just said that. You're not
contradicting yourself, are you?

>>Does BookUp feature a facility which identifies and deletes
duplicates
>>(like, say, the one that ChessBase provides)?

>No. In fact, Bookup was published and used for years before it even
had the
ability to store and retrieve games. Deleting duplicates is for a game

database.

Aha! Another reason for you to check out the competition? Another
reason *not to buy BookUp*? I don't have hard disk space to waste....

This really is a most enlightening conversation :-)

k



  
Date: 14 Apr 2005 05:40:47
From: Mike Leahy
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code

"k Houlsby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> It seems to me that most other GMs download TWIC every week, and use
> ChessBase in their daily work... To me, this suggests that for 80% of
> GMs, their doing these things is all of the "theory machine" they
> appear to need. Would you agree with that assessment, even if, clearly
> (and possibly with good reason) you believe that they might be better
> off using BookUp?

Some may be better off using Bookup, but my guess of 20 percent is just a
guess.

> >>Around
> >>ten years ago there was a section in Informator headed: "Practice
> >>corrects the estimations" which gave examples, from master play, of
> >>"established" evaluations' having been overturned by some new
> discovery
> >>in some line or other.
>
>
> >That is the process automated by Bookup.
>
> Wow.
>
> >>It seems to me to come down to this: how accurate and/or effective
> does
> >>one consider backsolving combined with the overnight analysis
> provided
> >>by any number of engines, on the one hand, in comparison with looking
>
> >>up the theory in the latest Informator or New in Chess Yearbook or
> >>Russian Chess Review or Correspondence Chess Yearbook or even an old
> >>copy of Shakmatny v USSR and conducting analysis oneself, on the
> other?
>
>
> >That's exactly it. Whether you rely on analysis by an engine or a GM
> or
> >both, it must be accurate and complete or Bookup's backsolving is
> GIGO.
>
> Garbage In, Garbage Out.... hmmm.... might this be the reason why most
> GMs seem to prefer to rely upon their *own analysis* rather than that
> generated by a "theory machine"?
>
> Might it also be a reason for those of us who are confirmed patzers to
> do likewise?

No, I'd recommend your analysis be accurate and complete. :) Bookup will
automatically make it obvious where it is inaccurate and/or incomplete.

> >>Very approximately, what percentage of GMs use BookUp in this way and
>
> >>to this end, do you think?
>
>
> >I'd guess 20 percent. I wish I could say it was more. Ultimately
> they're
> all doing it by hand.
>
> Hmmm... yes... GIGO. Hmmmm....
>
> >>What use is BookUp to a patzer, such as I am, for whom learning and
> >>playing a line provided by BookUp and then hanging my
> >>knight/bishop/rook/queen/king appears no different, qualitatively,
> from
> >>learning and playing a line in a book and then hanging my
> >>knight/bishop/rook/queen/king (been there, done that, got the t-shirt
>
> >>[literally!])?
>
>
> >I think I got that t-shirt also. :) To a patzer, Bookup is a way to
> pack
> *other* players' backsolved ideas into their heads fast.
>
> Yes. That's one of my points, I think. I used to memorise quite a lot
> of theory, perfectly accurately, and (if I managed to avoid hanging
> anything) when I reached the end of a line which promised a
> "comfortable and enduring edge" I'd think to myself: "What *is* my
> dark-squared bishop *doing* there, exactly...?"
>
> What is the point of patzers' getting "*other* players' backsolved
> ideas" into our heads? Won't it just confuse us even more? Heaven knows
> I'm confused enough as it is....

Indeed, what is the point of studying another player's analysis in, say, a
printed book? If there is a point to that, then there is a point in using
Bookup to vastly speed up the process.

>
> > To leave
> >patzer-dom behind, one must ultimately become brave enough to create
> one's
> >own ideas and improvements and test them. Even if you're wrong, the
> act of
> >analyzing with that much responsibility will make you a better player,
> ala
> >Kotov's rule about publishing one's analysis in _Think Like a
> Grandmaster_.
>
> Do you think that TLAG is good? Really?

I do. You should read it.

> I do agree wholeheartedly with your assertion that it's better to do
> one's own analysis than to rely on a "theory machine" which is still
> encumbered by a principle as mundane as "Garbage In, Garbage Out".

It's only encumbered if you put garbage in. I don't recommend that approach.
:)

>
> >>Right, so duplicates are bad then, I'm glad we cleared up that one.
> It
> >>took almost a week, but what the heck....
>
>
> >Duplicates may be "bad" but they don't cause Bookup any problems,
> unlike
> with a game database.
>
> Sure they do... they slow it down. You just said that. You're not
> contradicting yourself, are you?

I did not say they slow it down. In fact, I said that Bookup would be much
faster at handling it as the duplicate positions are never written to the
hard drive.

Again, you can call duplicates "bad" but they do not cause Bookup any
problems in database size or import speed, unlike a game database.

> >>Does BookUp feature a facility which identifies and deletes
> duplicates
> >>(like, say, the one that ChessBase provides)?
>
> >No. In fact, Bookup was published and used for years before it even
> had the
> ability to store and retrieve games. Deleting duplicates is for a game
>
> database.
>
> Aha! Another reason for you to check out the competition? Another
> reason *not to buy BookUp*? I don't have hard disk space to waste....

Again, Bookup was sold and used for many years without ANY game storage
features. By combining the common positions it often saves disk space.

Most people don't even use Bookup to store games. I'd recommend ChessBase
for all things game related, and you can quote me.

> This really is a most enlightening conversation :-)

Thank you. I'm off to a seminar for the next four days so I'll have to
catch up when I get back. For more enlightenment try...

http://www.bookup.com/20q.htm <-- "How is Bookup different from game
databases?

http://www.bookup.com/whybuy.htm <-- "I already have ChessBase..."


Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"
www.bookup.com
http://www.bookup.com/




 
Date: 13 Apr 2005 10:18:23
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
<snip >

>I've not tried Fritz8 endgame training.

OIC. Might I suggest that it may be in your interest to do so, given
that it's one of your main competitors?


> Bookup currently handles tablebases
by using Crafty as an engine.

Cool.

>While I've not done a head to head comparison of Fritz8 opening
training
with that of Bookup, owners of both have told me that Bookup is way
ahead in
that area.

This seems not to be impossible to believe, but might be more credible
if you could clearly demonstrate that using BookUp is significantly
more effective than using Fritz8. Can you cite any examples of, say,
someone's having told you of their having become a GM/IM/FM/NM largely
because of their having used BookUp?

I still don't get this, I fear....(ok, so I'm dumber than a bag of
hammers, but gimme a break, will ya?)

k



  
Date: 14 Apr 2005 05:51:33
From: Mike Leahy
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code

"k Houlsby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> <snip>
>
> >I've not tried Fritz8 endgame training.
>
> OIC. Might I suggest that it may be in your interest to do so, given
> that it's one of your main competitors?

Fritz is hardly a competitor. It is priily a playing program with some
game database features.

It may sound wise to say that Fritz has shortcomings because it is not
ChessBase. And ChessBase has shortcomings because it can't do a dozen
things that Bookup can do. And Bookup has shortcomings because it's not
Fritz.

It's more accurate to say IMHO that these programs have different intentions
and purposes.

> > Bookup currently handles tablebases
> by using Crafty as an engine.
>
> Cool.
>
> >While I've not done a head to head comparison of Fritz8 opening
> training
> with that of Bookup, owners of both have told me that Bookup is way
> ahead in
> that area.
>
> This seems not to be impossible to believe, but might be more credible
> if you could clearly demonstrate that using BookUp is significantly
> more effective than using Fritz8. Can you cite any examples of, say,
> someone's having told you of their having become a GM/IM/FM/NM largely
> because of their having used BookUp?

You've evidently missed the endorsements on our site. :)

> I still don't get this, I fear....(ok, so I'm dumber than a bag of
> hammers, but gimme a break, will ya?)

It's not a case of having an IQ around that of hammers, but few of us
actually do the specialized research the top players do with game databases
to prepare their openings, and only a few of those players have considered
that other software (Bookup?) can do that research.

Most club players are quite happy to get the Express version of Bookup and a
favorite ebook and learn an opening faster than any other way they know.


Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"
www.bookup.com




  
Date: 13 Apr 2005 23:54:42
From: Stefan Renzewitz
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
k,

just to add a new aspect:

www.chesspositiontrainer.com which is actually really 100% freeware (not a
trial version) has
a) probably the most sophistacted training center on the chess ket with
the latest beta 3.2
b) offers backsolving too
c) supports Crafty (and therefore crafty tablebases)
d) has a state-of-the-art interface
e) you will love the novelty feature if you play frequently on ICC or
playchess.com

Disadvantage for the a few more weeks/months: right now it is not good with
HUGE databases ( >100.000 positions), but if you really only want to manage
your repertoire I would certainly give it a try. I don't make really any
money from it so I feel the right to post.

Good news: Going to be available on Pocket PC and Linux, a new storagey
system is on its way - CPT is based on the latest technology. We are just
starting.

Stefan


"k Houlsby" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]
> <snip>
>
>>I've not tried Fritz8 endgame training.
>
> OIC. Might I suggest that it may be in your interest to do so, given
> that it's one of your main competitors?
>
>
>> Bookup currently handles tablebases
> by using Crafty as an engine.
>
> Cool.
>
>>While I've not done a head to head comparison of Fritz8 opening
> training
> with that of Bookup, owners of both have told me that Bookup is way
> ahead in
> that area.
>
> This seems not to be impossible to believe, but might be more credible
> if you could clearly demonstrate that using BookUp is significantly
> more effective than using Fritz8. Can you cite any examples of, say,
> someone's having told you of their having become a GM/IM/FM/NM largely
> because of their having used BookUp?
>
> I still don't get this, I fear....(ok, so I'm dumber than a bag of
> hammers, but gimme a break, will ya?)
>
> k
>




   
Date: 13 Apr 2005 18:15:39
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 at 21:54 GMT, Stefan Renzewitz wrote:
>
> just to add a new aspect:
>
> www.chesspositiontrainer.com which is actually really 100% freeware (not a
> trial version) has
[snip]
>
> Good news: Going to be available on Pocket PC and Linux, a new storagey
> system is on its way - CPT is based on the latest technology. We are just
> starting.

I look forward to the Linux version. When will it be ready?

--
Chris F.A. Johnson http://cfaj.freeshell.org
=================================================================
Everything in moderation -- including moderation


    
Date: 14 Apr 2005 07:13:50
From: Stefan Renzewitz
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 at 21:54 GMT, Stefan Renzewitz wrote:
>>
>> just to add a new aspect:
>>
>> www.chesspositiontrainer.com which is actually really 100% freeware (not
>> a
>> trial version) has
> [snip]
>>
>> Good news: Going to be available on Pocket PC and Linux, a new storagey
>> system is on its way - CPT is based on the latest technology. We are
>> just
>> starting.
>
> I look forward to the Linux version. When will it be ready?
>

A new team member of CPT is only dedicated to work on this one. Basically
"only" a new Linux interface has to be developed (unfortunately not possible
to port from Windows). Most other parts of the code can be re-used without
changing a line of the code. I got the impression he is very skilled and
motivated. He showed me already first results of the new interface and I
hope it is ready in a few months.

Stefan




 
Date: 13 Apr 2005 10:04:18
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
>When I say it "just works" I mean that it combines all the games by
position
>so that copies of the same game don't impact it. With backsolving,
just a
>single game with the best possible line will overturn a myriad of
games with
>the second best possible line. More on how Bookup's backsolving is
handier
>than game statistics (which I assume will be thrown off by copies of
the
>same game) is at http://www.bookup.com/backsolv=AD.htm

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere! If I understand correctly, then
backsolving is one of BookUp's
many big selling points. If I understand correctly, you are arguing
both here and
on the webpage to which you have provided a link above that compared
with bare statistics,
backsolving is a more reliable indicator of the acuity of a line
because:

"Backsolving also works with computer evaluations. Combined with
overnight analysis, this allows you to create a theory machine that
points out flaws in your repertoire - and discovers new improved
lines." (quoted from your webpage above).

This really is quite an impressive claim! Taken to its extreme, it
appears to me that it might just render Informator redundant, if it
works as effectively as you seem to be suggesting that it does. Around
ten years ago there was a section in Informator headed: "Practice
corrects the estimations" which gave examples, from master play, of
"established" evaluations' having been overturned by some new discovery
in some line or other.

It seems to me to come down to this: how accurate and/or effective does
one consider backsolving combined with the overnight analysis provided
by any number of engines, on the one hand, in comparison with looking
up the theory in the latest Informator or New in Chess Yearbook or
Russian Chess Review or Correspondence Chess Yearbook or even an old
copy of Shakmatny v USSR and conducting analysis oneself, on the other?

Very approximately, what percentage of GMs use BookUp in this way and
to this end, do you think?

What use is BookUp to a patzer, such as I am, for whom learning and
playing a line provided by BookUp and then hanging my
knight/bishop/rook/queen/king appears no different, qualitatively, from
learning and playing a line in a book and then hanging my
knight/bishop/rook/queen/king (been there, done that, got the t-shirt
[literally!])?


>> Also, if a database is full of copies, the fact that the general
>> operation of my HDD slows down doesn't make any difference to BookUp

>> either, is that right?


>I'm not sure what you're asking here. If the general operation of
your HDD
slows down, Bookup will slow down. Any database program would.

Right, so duplicates are bad then, I'm glad we cleared up that one. It
took almost a week, but what the heck....
Does BookUp feature a facility which identifies and deletes duplicates
(like, say, the one that ChessBase provides)?

<snip >

"Success is counted sweetest
By those who ne'er succeed."
--Emily Dickinson

"Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made
of things."
--T.S. Eliot (The Family Reunion)

k



  
Date: 13 Apr 2005 21:28:01
From: Mike Leahy
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code

"k Houlsby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>When I say it "just works" I mean that it combines all the games by
position
>so that copies of the same game don't impact it. With backsolving,
just a
>single game with the best possible line will overturn a myriad of
games with
>the second best possible line. More on how Bookup's backsolving is
handier
>than game statistics (which I assume will be thrown off by copies of
the
>same game) is at http://www.bookup.com/backsolv­.htm

>Ah! Now we're getting somewhere! If I understand correctly, then
>backsolving is one of BookUp's
>many big selling points. If I understand correctly, you are arguing
>both here and
>on the webpage to which you have provided a link above that compared
>with bare statistics,
>backsolving is a more reliable indicator of the acuity of a line
>because:

>"Backsolving also works with computer evaluations. Combined with
>overnight analysis, this allows you to create a theory machine that
>points out flaws in your repertoire - and discovers new improved
>lines." (quoted from your webpage above).

>This really is quite an impressive claim! Taken to its extreme, it
>appears to me that it might just render Informator redundant, if it
>works as effectively as you seem to be suggesting that it does.

It certainly is! When the concept was introduced, it was called a "theory
machine" and it does make Informator antiquated if not redundant.

>Around
>ten years ago there was a section in Informator headed: "Practice
>corrects the estimations" which gave examples, from master play, of
>"established" evaluations' having been overturned by some new discovery
>in some line or other.

That is the process automated by Bookup.

>It seems to me to come down to this: how accurate and/or effective does
>one consider backsolving combined with the overnight analysis provided
>by any number of engines, on the one hand, in comparison with looking
>up the theory in the latest Informator or New in Chess Yearbook or
>Russian Chess Review or Correspondence Chess Yearbook or even an old
>copy of Shakmatny v USSR and conducting analysis oneself, on the other?

That's exactly it. Whether you rely on analysis by an engine or a GM or
both, it must be accurate and complete or Bookup's backsolving is GIGO.

>Very approximately, what percentage of GMs use BookUp in this way and
>to this end, do you think?

I'd guess 20 percent. I wish I could say it was more. Ultimately they're
all doing it by hand.

>What use is BookUp to a patzer, such as I am, for whom learning and
>playing a line provided by BookUp and then hanging my
>knight/bishop/rook/queen/king appears no different, qualitatively, from
>learning and playing a line in a book and then hanging my
>knight/bishop/rook/queen/king (been there, done that, got the t-shirt
>[literally!])?

I think I got that t-shirt also. :) To a patzer, Bookup is a way to pack
*other* players' backsolved ideas into their heads fast. To leave
patzer-dom behind, one must ultimately become brave enough to create one's
own ideas and improvements and test them. Even if you're wrong, the act of
analyzing with that much responsibility will make you a better player, ala
Kotov's rule about publishing one's analysis in _Think Like a Grandmaster_.

>> Also, if a database is full of copies, the fact that the general
>> operation of my HDD slows down doesn't make any difference to BookUp
>> either, is that right?

>I'm not sure what you're asking here. If the general operation of
your HDD
slows down, Bookup will slow down. Any database program would.

>Right, so duplicates are bad then, I'm glad we cleared up that one. It
>took almost a week, but what the heck....

Duplicates may be "bad" but they don't cause Bookup any problems, unlike
with a game database.

>Does BookUp feature a facility which identifies and deletes duplicates
>(like, say, the one that ChessBase provides)?

No. In fact, Bookup was published and used for years before it even had the
ability to store and retrieve games. Deleting duplicates is for a game
database.


Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"
www.bookup.com






 
Date: 13 Apr 2005 03:35:19
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
>Bookup is tremendously useful in studying endings for this reason.
Bookup
for the Macintosh was once used to uphold a threefold repetition draw
claim
in a US Amateur team match in a very complicated rook ending.

That's very interesting. Does BookUp handle tablebases? Fritz8
recognises threefold repetitions. How is BookUp significantly better
than Fritz8, bearing in mind Fritz8's endgame training and opening
training features?

k



  
Date: 13 Apr 2005 15:31:00
From: Mike Leahy
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code

"k Houlsby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> >Bookup is tremendously useful in studying endings for this reason.
> Bookup
> for the Macintosh was once used to uphold a threefold repetition draw
> claim
> in a US Amateur team match in a very complicated rook ending.
>
> That's very interesting. Does BookUp handle tablebases? Fritz8
> recognises threefold repetitions. How is BookUp significantly better
> than Fritz8, bearing in mind Fritz8's endgame training and opening
> training features?

I've not tried Fritz8 endgame training. Bookup currently handles tablebases
by using Crafty as an engine.

While I've not done a head to head comparison of Fritz8 opening training
with that of Bookup, owners of both have told me that Bookup is way ahead in
that area.


Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"
www.bookup.com
www.chessopeningspgn.com




 
Date: 13 Apr 2005 03:30:29
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
>It just works. Since Bookup stores each unique position only once,
the only
thing that can expand the database is more commentary about that
position
(or more unique positions). This has the side effect of bringing all
the
annotations and moves from that position to the same place, even if
they
came from subvariations in different annotated games.

>That's one way that Bookup tops game databases.

So... what you're saying is that given the example which I quoted in
this post:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.computer/msg/3f376f8414c884ba

...if I have a database which is full of copies of the same game,
BookUp "just works", and provides
the best possible opening lines. Is that right?

Also, if a database is full of copies, the fact that the general
operation of my HDD slows down doesn't make any difference to BookUp
either, is that right?

k



  
Date: 13 Apr 2005 15:29:04
From: Mike Leahy
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code

"k Houlsby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> >It just works. Since Bookup stores each unique position only once,
> the only
> thing that can expand the database is more commentary about that
> position
> (or more unique positions). This has the side effect of bringing all
> the
> annotations and moves from that position to the same place, even if
> they
> came from subvariations in different annotated games.
>
> >That's one way that Bookup tops game databases.
>
> So... what you're saying is that given the example which I quoted in
> this post:
>
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.computer/msg/3f376f8414c884ba
>
> ...if I have a database which is full of copies of the same game,
> BookUp "just works", and provides
> the best possible opening lines. Is that right?

When I say it "just works" I mean that it combines all the games by position
so that copies of the same game don't impact it. With backsolving, just a
single game with the best possible line will overturn a myriad of games with
the second best possible line. More on how Bookup's backsolving is handier
than game statistics (which I assume will be thrown off by copies of the
same game) is at http://www.bookup.com/backsolv.htm

> Also, if a database is full of copies, the fact that the general
> operation of my HDD slows down doesn't make any difference to BookUp
> either, is that right?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. If the general operation of your HDD
slows down, Bookup will slow down. Any database program would.

If you're looking for some odd case of efficiency, then Yes, Bookup would
import the positions from the game once (writing them once to the hard
drive) and then would not bother writing anything to the hard drive for all
the copies of that game since the positions are already imported.

Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"
www.bookup.com
www.chessopeningspgn.com




 
Date: 12 Apr 2005 04:04:39
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: I'm new to chess databases...
If you're new to databases, Fritz 8 may well provide all you need from
them. You don't mention your rating, but I hope you'll forgive my
assuming that you might be under 2000. If you are, you should study
tactics, by theme. A good way to do this is to access the various
tactics keys which may be generated from the Fritz8 database. If you
want details of how to do this, let me know.

You should also study endgames. It's a good idea to install endgame
tablebases for Fritz8 to use, then to practise the endgame drills which
may be accessed from Fritz 8's board window by clicking
Tools-Training-Endgame Training.

If you can do all of those drills, perfectly, every time, then you're
probably pretty good :-)

If you're an expert (2000) or better, then ChessBase is the way to go.

k



  
Date: 12 Apr 2005 16:13:07
From: John J.
Subject: Re: I'm new to chess databases...
Thanks for your help.

I'm still in awe of Fritz 8. My last Chess software was CM 3 way back in the
mid 80's. It was very strong tactically but I could beat it if I managed to
last until the endgame...

John

"k Houlsby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> If you're new to databases, Fritz 8 may well provide all you need from
> them. You don't mention your rating, but I hope you'll forgive my
> assuming that you might be under 2000. If you are, you should study
> tactics, by theme. A good way to do this is to access the various
> tactics keys which may be generated from the Fritz8 database. If you
> want details of how to do this, let me know.
>
> You should also study endgames. It's a good idea to install endgame
> tablebases for Fritz8 to use, then to practise the endgame drills which
> may be accessed from Fritz 8's board window by clicking
> Tools-Training-Endgame Training.
>
> If you can do all of those drills, perfectly, every time, then you're
> probably pretty good :-)
>
> If you're an expert (2000) or better, then ChessBase is the way to go.
>
> k
>




 
Date: 12 Apr 2005 04:55:32
From: John J.
Subject: I'm new to chess databases...
What can your study system do for me that Fritz 8 can't ?

John




  
Date: 13 Apr 2005 01:07:53
From: Mike Leahy
Subject: Re: I'm new to chess databases...

"John J." <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> What can your study system do for me that Fritz 8 can't ?

There's quite a list of what Bookup does that Fritz 8 can't. :)

The biggest thing might be the way Bookup does training. This video
describes it: http://www.bookup.com/chessvideo8.htm

Most sophisticated thing is probably Backsolving. This video describes
that: http://www.bookup.com/chessvideo9.htm

Automatically updating your repertoire immediately after playing a game
online is described at: http://www.bookup.com/chessvideo5.htm

Overnight analysis of your repertoire (not just your games) is something the
Professional version of Bookup can do with a number of strong engines.


Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"
www.bookup.com




 
Date: 08 Apr 2005 17:14:13
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
<snip >
>> 1) In general, does BookUp work more effectively or less effectively
if
>> all of the games in the database upon which it is drawing are copies
of
>> the same game?



>Yes, when importing copies of the same game, Bookup ties everything
together
>by position so that the database doesn't grow, except for possible
extra
>text if you have the game headers placed in the comments to the game's
final
>position.

So... if I understand you correctly... no matter how wasteful of space
your database is, Bookup works just as well... duplicates don't skew
statistics for positions (with a consequent effect upon evaluations) or
anything like that?

What's up with that?

>I define myself by the seminars I give. In that area I have much
cooler
>nicknames. :)

I admit it was a cheap shot. :)

"Seagoon: Who are you?
Eccles: Me? I'm Lance Private Eccles, but most people call me by my
nickname.
Seagoon: What's that?
Eccles: Nick."

- Spike Milligan 'The Dreaded Batter Pudding Hurler (of
Bexhill-on-Sea)'

k



  
Date: 13 Apr 2005 00:54:38
From: Mike Leahy
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code

"k Houlsby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> <snip>
> >> 1) In general, does BookUp work more effectively or less effectively
> if
> >> all of the games in the database upon which it is drawing are copies
> of
> >> the same game?
>
>
>
> >Yes, when importing copies of the same game, Bookup ties everything
> together
> >by position so that the database doesn't grow, except for possible
> extra
> >text if you have the game headers placed in the comments to the game's
> final
> >position.
>
> So... if I understand you correctly... no matter how wasteful of space
> your database is, Bookup works just as well... duplicates don't skew
> statistics for positions (with a consequent effect upon evaluations) or
> anything like that?
>
> What's up with that?

It just works. Since Bookup stores each unique position only once, the only
thing that can expand the database is more commentary about that position
(or more unique positions). This has the side effect of bringing all the
annotations and moves from that position to the same place, even if they
came from subvariations in different annotated games.

That's one way that Bookup tops game databases.


Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"
www.bookup.com
www.chessopeningspgn.com




 
Date: 08 Apr 2005 06:13:40
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
What a strange response....

>I built the website because *I* wanted to have
something like it available.

Hmmm....yes.... *I* kinda knew that because *you* wrote in *your*
initial post in this thread:

>I built the site (above) so that
*I* could get games faster and easier for myself. :)

This gave *me* a clue that *you* built the website in order that *you*
might be able to do things more quickly and more easily *yourself*....

*I* have a coupla questions now:

1) In general, does BookUp work more effectively or less effectively if
all of the games in the database upon which it is drawing are copies of
the same game?

2) Did *you* hope for no response to *your* initial post?

k Houlsby
"The man who doesn't define himself in terms of the software he uses!"



  
Date: 08 Apr 2005 21:53:32
From: Mike Leahy
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code

"k Houlsby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> This gave *me* a clue that *you* built the website in order that *you*
> might be able to do things more quickly and more easily *yourself*....

Um, yeah. I guess *I* got in the habit of typing that. :)

I should know better than to post anything after 9 hours of coding.
Unfortunately that's when I usually read rgc. :)

> *I* have a coupla questions now:
>
> 1) In general, does BookUp work more effectively or less effectively if
> all of the games in the database upon which it is drawing are copies of
> the same game?

Yes, when importing copies of the same game, Bookup ties everything together
by position so that the database doesn't grow, except for possible extra
text if you have the game headers placed in the comments to the game's final
position.

> 2) Did *you* hope for no response to *your* initial post?

Nope. Mental muscles were simply disengaged.

> k Houlsby
> "The man who doesn't define himself in terms of the software he uses!"

I define myself by the seminars I give. In that area I have much cooler
nicknames. :)


Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"
www.bookup.com




   
Date: 10 Apr 2005 13:36:23
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
Mike Leahy <[email protected] > wrote:
> Yes, when importing copies of the same game, Bookup ties everything
> together by position so that the database doesn't grow, except for
> possible extra text if you have the game headers placed in the comments
> to the game's final position.

Does this behave the right way when you have two games that genuinely are
the same? For example, Huebner-Karpov (Tilburg 1986), Sokolov-Karpov
(Bilbao 1987), Ljubojevic-Karpov (Brussels 1987) and Nunn-Karpov
(Skelleftea 1989) all went

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 O-O
9.h3 Bb7 10.d4 Re8 11.Ng5 Rf8 12.Nf3 Re8 13.Ng5 Rf8 14.Nf3 1/2-1/2

Huebner-Karpov (Torino 1982) is the same except for the transposition
7... O-O 8.c3 d6.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Radioactive Soap (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ personal hygiene product but it'll
make you glow in the dark!


    
Date: 13 Apr 2005 00:58:13
From: Mike Leahy
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code

"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:xHE*[email protected]
> Mike Leahy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Yes, when importing copies of the same game, Bookup ties everything
> > together by position so that the database doesn't grow, except for
> > possible extra text if you have the game headers placed in the comments
> > to the game's final position.
>
> Does this behave the right way when you have two games that genuinely are
> the same? For example, Huebner-Karpov (Tilburg 1986), Sokolov-Karpov
> (Bilbao 1987), Ljubojevic-Karpov (Brussels 1987) and Nunn-Karpov
> (Skelleftea 1989) all went
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 O-O
> 9.h3 Bb7 10.d4 Re8 11.Ng5 Rf8 12.Nf3 Re8 13.Ng5 Rf8 14.Nf3 1/2-1/2
>
> Huebner-Karpov (Torino 1982) is the same except for the transposition
> 7... O-O 8.c3 d6.

Bookup handles all transpositions instantly, even into the endgame. So the
answer is Yes, it does behave the right way.

Bookup is tremendously useful in studying endings for this reason. Bookup
for the Macintosh was once used to uphold a threefold repetition draw claim
in a US Amateur team match in a very complicated rook ending.


Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"
www.bookup.com
www.chessopeningspgn.com




 
Date: 07 Apr 2005 13:57:01
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
Hi Mike

It's always pleasant to discover a new, free resource on the WWW.
chessopeningspgn.com falls happily into that category. Thus far I have
downloaded (as a test) only A00; with my broadband connection the
download fairly zipped along.

Upon completion, I converted the PGN file to ChessBase 6 format (I have
ChessBase 8) and scoured the database for duplicates. The program found
217, and I found another: game 2 is actually a duplicate of game 3
(Napoleon I and Bonaparte having been one and the same).

Might I suggest a further refinement of your offering, as an option in
a separate set of databases, only games by top players organised by ECO
code?

These are, of course, minor quibbles. Thanks for building the website.

k



  
Date: 09 Apr 2005 22:12:31
From: Lars Balzer
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code
Hi Mike,

k Houlsby schrieb:
> Hi Mike
>
> It's always pleasant to discover a new, free resource on the WWW.
> chessopeningspgn.com falls happily into that category.
already knowing:
http://www.chessgameslinks.lars-balzer.info
?

Best,
Lars

--
Lars Balzer
Webmaster of ChessGamesLinks
Linkcollection to free downloadable chessgames (pgn, cbh, cbf, ...)
http://www.chessgameslinks.lars-balzer.info


  
Date: 08 Apr 2005 01:57:33
From: Mike Leahy
Subject: Re: new PGN site - million games by ECO code

"k Houlsby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Hi Mike
>
> It's always pleasant to discover a new, free resource on the WWW.
> chessopeningspgn.com falls happily into that category. Thus far I have
> downloaded (as a test) only A00; with my broadband connection the
> download fairly zipped along.
>
> Upon completion, I converted the PGN file to ChessBase 6 format (I have
> ChessBase 8) and scoured the database for duplicates. The program found
> 217, and I found another: game 2 is actually a duplicate of game 3
> (Napoleon I and Bonaparte having been one and the same).
>
> Might I suggest a further refinement of your offering, as an option in
> a separate set of databases, only games by top players organised by ECO
> code?
>
> These are, of course, minor quibbles. Thanks for building the website.

You're very welcome, k. I built the website because *I* wanted to have
something like it available.


Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"
www.bookup.com
www.chessopeningspgn.com