Fritz Powerbook 2011 vs. Chess.com Game Explorer

Chess.com plugs Wholesale Chess daily. So, I visit the site and see Fritz Powerbook 2011, which claims: 

Featuring all current openings theory with 1.5 million games, Fritz Powerbook 2011 contains 23 millions opening positions, derived from only high class tournament games. In addition the DVD has a small but very exclusive book with the strongest GM games (ELO = 2550) from the past 100 years (2 million positions).

Sounds impressive. I recall someone saying that chess.com was going to update their Game Explorer soon. I'm not sure what they mean by that. Anyone here know what they are talking about?

Is chess.com's Game Explorer just as good as Fritz Powerbook 2011? Would it be just stupid redundancy to have access to both? 

What site or product do you use for researching opening lines?

Are you talking about using the TWIC updates to stay current with how pro chess players are playing various openings?  In ChessBase, I clicked on "Get TWIC", and TWIC 876 and 877 were downloaded to my computer just now.

I am not having much success against an ICC computer opponent when faced with the Petroff after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3. It gets real tricky after that. I have tried 3.Nc3, in attempt to get the computer opponent to transpose into a four knights, but even that results in complications. I don't know why, but the Petroff is difficult to play against.

Here's a 2011 game played with the Petroff Defense that I got from a new TWIC update.

I have a couple of the ChessBase Powerbooks, as well as ChessBase Opening Encyclopedia 2010. I can shed some light on what the differences are in these products:

The Powerbooks (there is Fritz Powerbook as well as powerbooks for individual openings) basically let you play through moves and give you statistics about moves played, based on the games of strong players (I forget what ChessBase's definition of "strong" is, but I would assume that in each game used at least one player is rated 2400+). Personally, I'm not a big fan of the powerbooks: I just use ChessBase 11, keep my MegaBase updated (buying the MegaBase gives you free updates for a year), and click the "Reference" tab when looking at positions. I usually do want to see only the games of strong players, so I simply sort by Elo of the color I'm interested, or sometimes average Elo. If the line is really topical, I will first sort by year and then some Elo combination. I'm far from a professional, but I know several semi-pros who tell me that my opening preparation is better than theirs.

In my opinion, the Opening Encyclopedia is a very useful product. Essentially, it is a compilation of ChessBase Magazine theoretical articles (2010 version has about 540; 2011 is advertized as having 580+) covering A00 to E99, though of course coverage is not equal. Many of the articles are recent, but many are not, so you will need to use your database to check some things, but the articles are written by either strong GMs or specialists in a particular line. ChessBase Magazine (CBM) is a small chess magazine printed in English and German, but it also comes with a DVD with new ANNOTATED games, opening theory articles, and so on.

CBM vs NIC Yearbook vs NIC

(Chess Life is crap nowadays, so I don't even mention it)

CBM doesn't have as many opening surveys per issue as NICY has, but there is much more "teaching" of the material than in NICY. NICY is for pros or wannabes like me who have more time for chess than the average person.

NICY has 33-35 surveys per issue and comes out four times a year.

CBM comes out six times a year, but you can also buy ChessBase Magazine Extra, which fills in the months in which CBM doesn't arrive. CBME has extra games, but I'm not sure it's worth it.

New in Chess is the most acclaimed chess magazine in the world...and this hype is justified. You get articles by top pros, or people close to top pros, covering tournaments and matches, and you get a lot of games annotated by the absolute elite players themselves. Don't be surpsrised to see games by Anand, Carlsen, Nakamura, Kramnik, Aronian, Ponomariov, Gelfand, Ivanchuk, etc. with annotations by the players themselves! Usually the annotations are entertaining, very instructive, or both. It's not the place for straight opening theory, however.

I had not seen that plan for White before in the Petroff. It looks simple and easy to remember and White has an easy time developing his pieces. Thank you.

I have ChessBase Light, and when I download the TWIC updates, they don't merge into the rest of the database, so when I perform a search after a certain position, I must sift through the various different downloaded databases if I want to see more current games.

I'm sure there is a way to merge all of my databases into one giant one...I just have not figured out how to do that yet.

Thanks for taking the time to provide several useful comparisons.

What I don't like about the ChessBase PowerBooks is that you don't get an ECO code or name of the opening, like in Chess.com's Game Explorer.

Wow! The ChessBase Opening Encyclopedia 2010 is now on clearance at www.wholesalechess.com. It was $159.99, but now is only $49.99.

Description of Opening Encyclopedia 2010

• more than 3.7 million games, all featuring ECO codes
• more than 79.000 of them annotated
• more than 4.800 opening surveys
• access to the games with a big opening key
• 506 special theory databases
• big tree of all games for quick overview and statistics
• ChessBase 9 Reader with access to all databases

Chess.com's Game Explorer contains fewer games (1.5 million). When doing a search in ChessBase's online database of 4.5 million games, you see some interesting moves that you won't find in the smaller databases. I especially find it useful to perform a search of games from much lower rated players and scholastic events, where I will see beginning level tactics and attacking themes.

Even though learning opening theory won't do me much good right now at my playing strength, I do like to study the ones that give me grief. 

Here's an example of a line in the Scandinavian that I have faced often, and after some study, I have become much better at facing it, and winning games!

I was very pleased with this game, as I did not blunder and found a mate in one. I missed a tactic in 27.Qe5+, winning Black's last piece, his rook. It was a fast 10-0 game, and my focus was on trading down after my opponent blundered his queen for my rook, so I was not looking for tactics, just simplification. I should always look for tactics!

Computer Analysis (~2500 strength)

Inaccuracies: 0 = 0.0% of moves
Mistakes: 14 = 46.7% of moves
Blunders: 0 = 0.0% of moves

Ajedrecito posted two games in the Petroff with the line: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3 Nxc3 6.dxc3. I found a game where White plays 11.Ng5! I never would have found that move. Black can not capture that knight, even with a pawn. It's a tactical shot way above my current tactical vision. Enjoy.

Geez! How many attacking motiffs do you know by heart?!  How am I supposed to beat a guy like you at the chess table?

Musikamole, you learn this stuff over years of study. At first it may seem daunting, but after awhile, a lot of the material just "sticks."

I know a lot of young chess players who don't have nearly as much knowledge as I think they should, the main reason being that they may take lessons and/or go to chess classes, but they do not read enough chess books (if they read chess books at all!).

To learn the chess terms and motifs, you need to study a lot.

Yep.  It will take a lot of study and practice to gain another 200 rating points.  It was really hard just to go from 800 to 1000 in Blitz, and I didn't see success until after tons of tactics training. But, it did happen, so I did improve.

 I’ve discovered that my biggest weakness in tactics is not pins, forks or skewers,  but checkmates.  I am absolutely terrible at seeing those patterns, still!  That is why, after each TT rating reset, it settles into the high 1100 to low 1200 range.  I’m stuck there for now until I get better at checkmates, where I lose the majority of points.I’ll keep working on mates in one and two over at chesstempo.

This may sound funny, but in real life, checkmates are not as important as they're often made out to be. More important is the ability to win material and to not lose it.

Also, make sure you are not neglecting strategy and endgames too much. Yes, tactics are very important, but they're not everything.

I agree. Regarding checkmate, part of it for me comes down to getting better at endgame technique, i.e., finding a more efficient way to mate with a king and rook vs. king, or finding mate with any combiantion of pieces when I have a huge material advantage. Often, it takes too long for me to do so, an again, that will just take more practice.

My brain seems to solve problems better in the morning. I gained a few points in TT today.

Rating

Don't leave your further development to "just more practice." Study.

When I was around your level, How to Play the Chess Endings by Eugene Znosko-Borovsky was extremely helpful. I studied that book over and over. Between that and From the Middlegame to the Endgame by Edmar Mednis, I was easily beating my peers in endgames of all kinds till I got to 1600 USCF. Later I studied more and more endgame books, but those two books were my foundation, and even now the endgame is the strongest part of my game. (It wasn't out then, but today I would make Essential Chess Endings by James Howell the third book to study heavily, followed by Mikhail Shereshevsky's Endgame Strategy).

Sometimes I can make simple two-move blunders of material when I'm feeling anything other than in tip-top form (actually, for a 2000+ player, I blunder a bit too much...good tactical play doesn't come naturally to me, since I only became strong at tactics when I was 1900). BUT...I can play endgames at a master level in my sleep.

Learn to play with the initiative from an early stage of your chess development. Had I gained some feel for this earlier (and studied less openings), combined with my endgame skills, I would have gone much further.

I use the Powerbook 2011 in my teaching program and I don't recommend it to students. I have to say your dedication to study is fantastic! When I first started playing I had a lot of trouble with openings. Of course, teaching chess has helped me greatly with opening theory because I'm constantly exploring variations, etc in an effort to give my students good lectures. The 2010 Opening Encyclopedia is your best bet. I find it much easier to gather the information I need. While there is nothing wrong with the Powerbook, it just doesn't work for my students.

1. Study - I've done a few endgame studies found in Silman's book, Silman's Complete Endgame Course, and that helps when I am up a minor piece. When this happens, I usually look to force a trade of queens, followed by a further trade of material until I reach the winning K+ R vs. K scenario. 

It's time for me to learn a few more types of endgames, as I do find myself in other situations, where, for example, it would be handy to know how to promote a single pawn more efficiently when both sides only have kings and pawns on the board. That happened to me once in an OTB game, and the stronger player beat me, followed by some advice on king placement in a K + P endgame.

2. Initiative - My playing style tends towards OPEN play, starting with 1.e4, and playing d2-d4 whenever possible, so that both of my bishops are free to develop. I do my best to avoid playing d2-d3, blocking my queenside bishop. So, the Scotch is a good opening for me, along with always playing d2-d4 against the French and Caro-Kann. I will even play the Scotch Gambit in order to get in Bc4. With the Black pieces, I avoid playing the Caro-Kann/French, and simply meet 1.e4 with 1...e5, inviting the OPEN game.

Pushing both center pawns helps in developing ALL of my pieces quickly, often faster than my opponents, which then gives me the initiative. Keeping the initiative is the big challenge. 

After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5, I will play 4...Bc5 (The Traxler), inviting many tactical complications which are not easy to solve in fast time controls.

I get my attacking ideas from GM Boris Alterman, who has many videos on gambit openings on the ICC server, and I have his book on gambits. Alterman places a great deal of emphasis on fighting for and keeping the initiative. To play in this gambit style, he says that a player must be strong in tactics. Thus, I work hard on tactics.

Playing in this style also invites huge tactical blunders from both sides. So, I will make big blunders as well. Keeping track of all 64 squares is hard!

I’m happy when my opponents play book moves in the opening, as I can apply my study of the open games and gambits.  Unfortunately, most of my opponents in the under 1200 pool don't play book moves, and are usually behind in development after excessive pawn pushes.  I find this unorthodox play more difficult to meet.  It requires more patience on my part, sticking with my plan to develop quickly, play solid, and look for tactical or even positional opportunities. I have a book by Dan Heisman on positional play, Elements of Positional Power,  so I have an entry level understanding on this style of play.  I also listen to his video lectures over at ICC.

Even with the amount of study I did on opening theory, positional play and endgame technique, my rating didn’t reflect this study until after many hours spent on Tactics Trainer and over at ChessTempo.  After drilling myself in tactics, my rating improved.

Chess is 99% tactics for players under Master strength.

I find this statement quite annoying and like to think that the outcome of a chess game for the non-titled player is decided on more than just tactics.  If chess is 99% tactics for non-titled players, then is it only one giant puzzle to solve, over and over again?  I don't like puzzle games and thought that chess was the ultimate game of strategy.

I hit a nice peak in tactics trainer today. I'm going to reset my history again, and strive for a greater accuracy. Something in the high 60's, maybe even low 70's. I don't see any of the IM's here trying for an accuracy greater than that. IM David Pruess mentioned that TT is not for calculation training or improving one 's board vision. He says that it is for pattern recognition.

Rating

Problems