Engines for Game Analysis

[guyhayton]

I have read on various forums that engines have different styles for analysis purposes... aggressive, positional play, draw-ish etc. etc.
So effectively people have a mix of chess engines to represent "human personalities" and will mix engine choice depending upon either the desired outcome or to compare viewpoints.

Whilst a novice, I wish to get more involved in analysing my games and will practice using Aquarium/Chess Assistant on GM and IM games.
Too much choice would be my natural inclination - that is download and buy all available engines, but I will drown in trying to discover the engine styles myself.

I have searched for a list of engine "personalities" but have failed so I hope to short-circuit my natural approach, focus and get some experienced advice from others.

I currently have:

Houdini 2.0b
Deep Rybka 4.1
Deep Shredder 12
Critter 1.2
Komodo 3

What personalities would people place against these five? Is there enough variety? I don't mind spending money as long as I know it will be of benefit.

Any direction would be appreciated...

Cheers
Guy

[Roger de Coverly]

Whilst a novice, I wish to get more involved in analysing my games and will practice using Aquarium/Chess Assistant on GM and IM games.

I'd be inclined to suggest that if you want to improve your own practical play, that using the engines on your and your opponent's play is likely to be more beneficial than trying to second guess GMs and IMs. This will tell you where your or your opponent played a reasonably sensible move and where it was nearly the worst choice on the board.

[guyhayton]

That's a fair point... the GM+IM game suggestion was more for me to practice the analysis process.

I would be really interested to hear what engines people use and why (tactical, positional or other aspect)

Thanks in advance

[Lea Hudson]

Morning Guy,

I'm pretty much a novice when it comes to analysis and understanding the differences between engines. Like you, I have wondered about the various engines and their "personality" during play.

For what it's worth, my take on it is... at my level, I doubt I could beat any of the engines, even going back to the early Fritz versions, so I don't worry too much about which to use. Any of the newer ones should be able to give me new ideas and insight into what I probably missed in games. I tend to avoid most GM game analysis now because I still don't understand most of them. Even with an explanation as to why a certain move was better than another, I know I'd never have spotted it or thought of it no matter how much time I had on the clock. Until I get to a high enough level to begin to understand how to recognise certain tactics or strategies, I just don't worry about it and live with Fritz et al analysing both mine and others games who play at a moderately higher level.

Cheers,
Lea

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Guy.

"I don't mind spending money as long as I know it will be of benefit."

Spend money on getting some lessons and advice from a good human coach.

Get out and play as often as you can and you will meet all the real different
personalities and styles that a computer cannot possibly ape.

The chief ability that you will require that a computer cannot give you
is to be able to spot and punish human errors.

Also computers in lost positions cannot wriggle and cheapo as
good as humans as this usually involves setting a trap or playing
a cleverly masked unsound move. Computers cannot do this as they
have no idea (yet) of the concept of making an unsound move whose
refutation is difficult for a human to see.

Computers won't gamble or roll the dice hoping for a blunder and everyone
reading this has gambled OTB and won.
And everyone reading this has tossed a won game falling for a cheapo
that a computer would never have played.