How much am I missing using only free software?

Dear friends,

This is my first post on this forum, and I ask for your indulgence if I commit some kind of faux-pas, in particular for a newcomer.

Here is the question that I would like to submit to you:

I have been using SCID 4.0 running on my Debian and Ubuntu GNU/Linux computers.  The chess engine which I mostly rely on is Toga2, and I combine the above with almost 10GB of chess databases (Chess Analysis Project opening database, Million Base 1.74 database, PGN Mentor database, Walter Eigenmann database, Pitt U databases, etc. etc.).  All of this has cost me exactly zero dollars, and I simply cannot imagine what a typical chess player could miss having all this.

However, I know that most chess players would go down another road, typically using a combination of ChessBase10 ($199) with its MegaBase ($419), and Rybka3 ($62) or ChessAssistant10 ($99 for the starter and $159 for the pro version) with Rybka3 [all the prices in the latest Chess Life].

So taking the two extremes, how does

SCID4.0+Toga2+free databases

compare with

ChessBase10"Mega"+Rybka3?

I readily concede that Rybka3 is stronger than Toga2, but I wonder by how much exactly or, more relevantly, if an average chess player would be able to notice the difference?  After all, chess engine performance also heavily relies on hardware (for speed) and in that case, running Linux gives my setup a huge advantage already.

ChessBase10 is probably more polished than SCID4.0, and it probably has additional features.  But, again, are they worth the extra money?

I have to admit that I am new to the computer chess business and that I have never used ChessBase10, but before I think about doing so I really would be interested in hearing your feeback, in particular from those who have used both SCID and CB.

Many thanks in advance for your pointers,

RN

Thanks for your reply.  However, do you believe that a Expert or Master level chess player would really get his/her money worth with the proprietary setup?  Which features of the proprietary combination which would be missing from the free combination would be most valuable for a Master level player?

(As far as I know you can run Rybka3 in a Linux box.  As for ChessBase and ChessAssistant, you am confident that an emulator like WINE or CrossOver could run them too.)

I have ChessBase 10 + Mega2009 + Deep Rybka 3 (Fritz 11 interface).

But in the last days I have been trying SCID...

And I have bought other software like Peshk@ and Chessimo.

The ChessBase stuff doesn't cover everything.

If you've already got SCID, TOGA and millions of downloaded PGNs, you probably won't benefit an awful lot by buying the Chessbase equivalents. The ChessBase interfaces are just better and more professional-looking. And CB has all the associated DVDs and other products.

There's a free database of several million games here:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/icofybase/

By the way, Rybka v2.2n2 is available for free on the Web. It's probably stronger than TOGAII and better for analysis.

Just buy Fritz with a nice engine and call it a day.  Almost all the engine packages offered play at the 3,000 ELO level, so there won't ever necessarily be a need to upgrade or replace.  You can get the whole shebang for about 60 bucks, and download databases (virus free) for *free*.  It's the only way to go, if you ask me.

How much am I missing using only no software?

Wonderful!!!  Thank you so much!

One of the features that Chessbase has is when you play through an opening, and reach a certain position where you would like to know what moves grandmasters have played, you click on the Reference pane.  It gives you a list of the available candidate moves, the names of the grandmasters who play each move the most, and a list of games where the current position has been reached.  You just click on the header to sort the games by white elo, black elo, date, white player name, etc.  The ability to sort game lists with a single click is one feature I miss most when not working in Chessbase.  I also like that so many game lists provide the continuation from a given position, so I can decide which games to look at without having to open them.

I also really like the system of opening keys.  Every time I create a database archive, I can set up an opening key designed to take me right to the critical position in for example, the Ruy Lopez Marshall Gambit without having to scroll through the individual moves.  The "Find novelty" feature is another one I would have trouble getting along without.

Very interesting!  Thanks for these details!

Download chessbase 2009 free version and see for yourself. You are getting a better looking and more covenient interface,  sortable searches and auto update of db . But other than that not much else.

SCiD benefits.

Bookmarks are one click access to any position to db -. opening tree is much faster than the Reference pane of chessbase. The browse/view games without opening - all available in opening tree window is equivalent to chessbase.

Features of scid that are "hard to find": multiple import of pgn files, play engine against engine using trainer mode. Start one engine set time per move and let it make a move then start second engine set time and engine plays engine. I have Toga 2 playing Rybka 2. Rybka won 2 out of 2 games. But I think Toga's analysis is best for finding mates quicker.

Also auto-annotate of multiple games  - which is useful when you want the engine to go through the games you played and save anaylysis for later viewing.

I like the way chessbase interface is organized a little better but other than that I see no reason to spend $200 - i prefer to get a nice chess set for that money!

Maybe I am wrong about SCID, but it strikes me that it takes much longer to do many of the things I do most regularly in Chessbase.  The Reference pane in Chessbase provides a lot more information in a readily digestible form than SCID's opening trees.  In SCID's trees, it seems that you have to click on an icon to get a seemingly unsortable list of "best games," and then you have to scroll through each game to see the continuation rather than having all the continuations listed for you at a glance.

Also, it strikes me that opening keys are far more than mere bookmarks.  You can organize each individual database into a structure that makes sense to you, and then apply that structure to other databases with a few clicks.  Also Chessbase Light 2009 Premium is only $50 not $200.

Question: How much would it cost for me, to go from zero to full-fledged setup, and how much time would it take? What products would I buy?

Let's assume I would buy a dedicated laptop, one good engine, and a rather comprehensive opening DB.

If it's easy, can you do a "budget", "regular", and "deluxe" configuration?

I'm facing the same question atm and I decided to purchase the following products in the following days:

1) For database system: Chessbase Light Premium (paid version).

2) For analysis environment: Aquarium (probably Rybka as well but may use the free version of Rybka to cut costs down).

So far I have been using SCID but

* for databases: I really don't want to waste time to break big bases into smaller ones to make searches fast, it becomes tiring (working with Mega DB 2009 in SCID takes patience). I also want the databases to auto-update, store my opening repertoire and have convenient opening reports (like colourful arrows to indicate manoeuvres etc). In a topic I made about database software, http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/database-software, rigamagician told me that CBL does these things :), also the database is online, which saves disk space and I presume removes CPU load & increases speed.

* for analysis environment: Having an engine "dump" saying this line is best because it is x.yz centipawns while the other line is x'.y'z' centipawns isn't to my liking. From what I have heard/read so far, Aquarium allows you to do interactive analysis, that is you can "tell" the engine what lines you want it to pay attention to. Essentially what I like about this is that it sounds like an environment which helps the user to analyse his ideas, not switch off his brain & turn on the engine.

That being said, SCID is not bad, especially considering its cost but personally I'd rather pay 100 Euros and do what I want faster and not waste time by doing things I don't care at all, like organizing databases and trying to sort out what is useful from an opening report which isn't as clear as CB's opening report.

Regarding hardware cost, I plan to run these things on a 200 quid netbook, certainly higher-end hardware would mean higher-end analyses but I am not Topalov and I don't think my games are that complex to push even the simplest hardware to its limits. I expect maybe say a 200 Elo handicap due to hardware limits but I don't care about that, what I find important is to have easy to use software and not waste time on software matters and I think this is doable, even on a netbook.

Thanks for the detail, pentagram.

Anyone else?

Netbooks can be had for $300 on up.  Chessbase 10 with the annotated Megabase goes for $400, but if you don't need the annotations, Chessbase 10 plus the Big Database runs $188.  A third alternative is to download a large database like Icofybase or 1.74 Million Base for free, and just buy Chessbase Light 2009 Premium for $50.  Convetka's ChessAssistant has largely the same functionality as Chessbase, and runs from $100 or so including a 3 million game Hugebase and engine.  Aquarium ($84) still strikes me as a work in progress, but some players seem to like it.  The engine Rybka 2.2n2 can be downloaded for free, and 3 is included with most of the ChessAssistant or Aquarium packages.

The question of how long it would take you to get set up is a tricky one.  I keep a database archive of every game I ever played, create elaborate opening keys, analyzing and backsolving to try to find out which lines I've been doing well in and which lines I've been busted.  (My Caro-Kann is currently fractured beyond repair, for instance).  It's taken me years to get where I am now, but on the other hand, if you just want to look up games, and play through them, you should be able to figure out a program like Chessbase reasonably soon.  I find SCID, ChessAssistant and Aquarium a lot less intuitive, and end up having to read over the manuals a lot.  Aquarium in particular is notorious for hiding features where you would least expect them.  Even so, I'd like to think that all the time I've spent working on my opening repertoire or analyzing my games with a database has paid off, and I've learned a lot more than if I tried to keep track of everything in notebooks the way I used to.  If nothing else, it's a lot easier to find things.

Rigamagician,

After your feedback on Aquarium I'm having second thoughts on purchasing it. What environment do you recommend for analysis? I'm not fond of reading engine lines and accepting them as best course of action because they come from a 3000+ Elo oracle. What sounded nice about Aquarium is that you can guide it to build the analysis tree.

 What other analysis interfaces (don't care that much about the engine behind it) have similar features that allow the user to "guide" the analysis tree? last time I used Fritz it didn't have similar features but I have to admit it was an archaic version (early-mid 90's don't remember the exact version number!), does Fritz interface have this feature now?

a very interesting and informative thread - thanks a lot fo you all for this info!

Ozzie: for "budget" you can "shop" all Chessbase, Fritz, Rybka from the Bit Torrent store :))

Aquarium's "Interactive Deep Analysis" (IDeA) strikes me as a move towards greater automation, taking away control of the process from the player.  When you run an engine in Infinite Analysis mode in Aquarium, Chessbase, ChessAssistant or SCID, you yourself have control over which position to focus on, how long to spend on a particular position, and when to move to a new position, etc.  When you start up IDeA, you have to choose a certain standardized length of time that the engine will look at each position.  You can influence which positions it looks at by inputting moves, but IDeA definitely has a mind of its own, wasting time on alternatives no human would ever consider, and handling them in an order that only Aquarium knows.  Also, you cannot even see the engine output when you are running IDeA.  You sit there trying out different moves, clicking on this button asking IDeA to add them to its queue, but it takes quite some time before it ever gets around to considering the moves you have inputted, and by then your thoughts have moved on to other lines.  Sometimes, it gets caught in loops giving a repetition of moves as winning for one side or the other, and spending the bulk of its time on a line that is clearly a draw.

Aquarium does have some nice features.  For one, it saves all of its analysis from both Infinite Analysis and IDeA, and gives you the option of adding interesting lines to your notation.  It backsolves using best assessments further up the tree, and can preserve assessments as you move backwards toward the start of a line.  It also has a utility for doing batch EPD analysis, so that you can analyze an opening repertoire backsolved by result, GM assessment or engine assessment, as you can in Chess Openings Wizard Professional or ChessAssistant.  Aquarium though is not really all that well suited to searching for games, making comparisons or openings research.  Its database features are still a bit primitive compared to Chessbase or ChessAssistant.

Chessbase has been adding new features to both Chessbase and Fritz with each release.  The Reference pane is new.  Monte Carlo analysis is new.  They've expanded the playerbase with photos and up-to-date ratings.  They've added the ability to view video clips, and publish moving HTML pages.  The ability to download directly from TWIC is new.  The built-in Playchess client is also a lot more sophisticated than earlier versions.  They haven't exactly rushed to include backsolving or IDeA, but I think that might be because they feel that the audience for these features is limited.  All in all, I still prefer Chessbase over Aquarium, but I guess it is a matter of taste.

I don't think there is any point buying something like Rybka just because it has an ELO of 3150. I hardly think you will notice the difference between 2800 and 3150. Rather, people buy it for the program's features. E.g. I bought Aquarium Rybka 3 because of its Interactive deep analysis sounded nice(well, ok, I bought Aquarium because it came as a discount package with Chess Assistant 10 starter).