3D boards better for practice ?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

Hello Guys,



I have a simple question regarding the 3D sets in CMX and Shredder 9. I don't
get many good opponents in my locality so all my practice is based on
Shredder 9/CMX.





I am a guy who has used the 2D sets happily so far, coz they were clean and
nice. But of late I had a brainwave that using a 3D set is close to the
"real thing" of playing a tourney game and so I checked out the 3D
facilities. I especially liked the new 3D sets available for download from
CMX (Staunton tournament II). But I still prefer to play the old 2d board.



So my question is: does anyone perceive an improved advantage in *OTB games*
with practicing in 3D boards as opposed to conventional 2D boards in
Shredder/CMX?



Thanks for your time,

Walker

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

In my opinion 3D is nice to view, but harder to grasp than 2D.
If ease of use and speed of analysing a position is more important
than the esthetics, 2D is in my eyes the best way to go.
Chess is by its rules a 2D game, so 3D is in my eyes of no use.
I don't see any advantage in use of 3D sets for preparing for OTB
games and I will be really, really surprized if there will be someone
who seriously confirms, that it is helpful in practicing.

Claudio

"SkyWalker" <Walker@Sky.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:dhddv2$maq$1@news.mch.sbs.de...
> Hello Guys,
>
>
>
> I have a simple question regarding the 3D sets in CMX and Shredder 9. I
don't
> get many good opponents in my locality so all my practice is based on
> Shredder 9/CMX.
>
>
>
>
>
> I am a guy who has used the 2D sets happily so far, coz they were clean
and
> nice. But of late I had a brainwave that using a 3D set is close to the
> "real thing" of playing a tourney game and so I checked out the 3D
> facilities. I especially liked the new 3D sets available for download from
> CMX (Staunton tournament II). But I still prefer to play the old 2d
board.
>
>
>
> So my question is: does anyone perceive an improved advantage in *OTB
games*
> with practicing in 3D boards as opposed to conventional 2D boards in
> Shredder/CMX?
>
>
>
> Thanks for your time,
>
> Walker
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

SkyWalker <Walker@Sky.com> wrote:
> I am a guy who has used the 2D sets happily so far, coz they were clean
> and nice. But of late I had a brainwave that using a 3D set is close to
> the "real thing" of playing a tourney game and so I checked out the 3D
> facilities.

I've never liked 3D sets but, then, I have, until recently, had plenty of
opportunities for casual games with real sets. I personally think that
playing against computers (or online) on 2D boards is useful as it means
that I get better at visualizing things in 2D (which is useful for reading
books) and because I tend to analyze in a mixture of 2D and 3D while
playing OTB.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Technicolor Pants (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ well-tailored pair of trousers but
it's in realistic colour!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

SkyWalker wrote:

>I have a simple question regarding the 3D sets in CMX and Shredder 9. I don't
>get many good opponents in my locality so all my practice is based on
>Shredder 9/CMX.
>
>I am a guy who has used the 2D sets happily so far, coz they were clean and
>nice. But of late I had a brainwave that using a 3D set is close to the
>"real thing" of playing a tourney game and so I checked out the 3D
>facilities. I especially liked the new 3D sets available for download from
>CMX (Staunton tournament II). But I still prefer to play the old 2d board.
>
>So my question is: does anyone perceive an improved advantage in *OTB games*
>with practicing in 3D boards as opposed to conventional 2D boards in
>Shredder/CMX?

I have a better alternative. Set up a real tournament-standard
chessboard with a clock and a scorebook next to your computer.
Play as if you were playing a human.

If your chess program has an option where it only outputs standard
notation, use that option. Otherwise, move the window so that the
displayed board is offscreen and you cab only see the notation.
It may also be possible to make a custom 2D set that has all of the
pieces and squares the same color, making the board look blank.

--
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

"SkyWalker" <Walker@Sky.com> wrote in message
news:dhddv2$maq$1@news.mch.sbs.de...
>
> So my question is: does anyone perceive an improved advantage in *OTB
> games* with practicing in 3D boards as opposed to conventional 2D boards
> in Shredder/CMX?
>

I disagree that the 2d boards are better against a computer -- would you
train a pilot with a simulator that only represents the world with 'icons' ?

I have a theory, so take it for what it's worth...seeing the board in 3d
actually requires a different form of pattern recognition for your brain.
If you see a bishop on a 3d board it moves towards and away from you, very
differently from the clean diagonals on a flat board. If you spend all your
time on a 2d board, you may come to a 3d board (real-life or simulated) and
maybe miss that one of your pieces is under attack.

So in conclusion, my theory implies that 2d boards cause brain damage.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:07:45 -0400, Grackle wrote:

> So in conclusion, my theory implies that 2d boards cause brain damage.

Not brain damage, just a slightly altered form of the skill you need when
playing in "real life". I think it's probably best to practice both styles,
which also keeps your brain on its toes.

I noticed the same with go lately, by the way, and now switch to 3D go
boards every so often.

M.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

"Michael Vondung" <mvondung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mpdqz2257ifm.3ykbfvb4yd0m$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:07:45 -0400, Grackle wrote:
>
>> So in conclusion, my theory implies that 2d boards cause brain damage.
>>
>
> Not brain damage, just a slightly altered form of the skill you need when
> playing in "real life". I think it's probably best to practice both
> styles,
> which also keeps your brain on its toes.
>
> I noticed the same with go lately, by the way, and now switch to 3D go
> boards every so often.
>
> M.

I've been playing around with Go too and notice I can't 'see' where the
computer will capture an entire clump of stones from me in one move, and of
course it does. But it's fun learning the game, even if it's too late for
me to ever become any good at it. Btw, what software are you using that
provides a 3d view of the board?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
> SkyWalker wrote:
>> So my question is: does anyone perceive an improved advantage in *OTB
>> games* with practicing in 3D boards as opposed to conventional 2D
>> boards in Shredder/CMX?
>
> I have a better alternative. Set up a real tournament-standard
> chessboard with a clock and a scorebook next to your computer.
> Play as if you were playing a human.

That is a better idea, yes. I don't own a clock and am happy for the
computer to keep time (I never forget to press the clock anyway so
practicing that isn't necessary for me). Make sure the computer beeps
when it makes its move!


Dave.

--
David Richerby Generic Gigantic Cheese (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a brick of cheese but it's huge
and just like all the others!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

Grackle <nowhere@lalaland.ca> wrote:
> I disagree that the 2d boards are better against a computer -- would you
> train a pilot with a simulator that only represents the world with
> 'icons' ?

I think this comparison is irrelevant. To me, chess is an abstract game
and 2D diagrams, real boards and pictures of real boards are just physical
representations of that abstract game.


> I have a theory, so take it for what it's worth...seeing the board in 3d
> actually requires a different form of pattern recognition for your
> brain. If you see a bishop on a 3d board it moves towards and away from
> you, very differently from the clean diagonals on a flat board.

This is true but the problem I have with 3D boards is that I miss that
things are attacked because pieces hide behind each other. Of course,
this happens on a real board, too (though to a lesser extent -- all the 3D
graphics I've seen, which isn't many, I admit, have pieces that are very
large for the squares they're on) but I can solve that problem at a real
board by moving my head slightly.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Dangerous Tool (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ screwdriver but it could explode at
any minute!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

Thanks for the input guys.

My main problem is that my calculation skills with lets say Renkos CD or CT
Art does not really happen OTB. I miss some easy 3-4 movers in OTB, although
i very rarely miss them when I practice with CT Art/Renko CD or play with
comp. This is the reason why i asked this question.

I have considered simulating OTB with computer player as suggested by Guy
Macon. It sounds fine - but slightly cumbersome as I play G/10s. Now i am
considering G/10 +5secs to do so.

thanks for your time,
Walker

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

SkyWalker wrote:

>Thanks for the input guys.
>
>My main problem is that my calculation skills with lets say Renkos CD or CT
>Art does not really happen OTB. I miss some easy 3-4 movers in OTB, although
>i very rarely miss them when I practice with CT Art/Renko CD or play with
>comp. This is the reason why i asked this question.
>
>I have considered simulating OTB with computer player as suggested by Guy
>Macon. It sounds fine - but slightly cumbersome as I play G/10s. Now i am
>considering G/10 +5secs to do so.

Do you play game in 10 minutes against humans? In my opinion, having
the same time controls, rules, and equipment when playing the computer
or the human is best for improving your play against humans. It feels
a bit silly at first, punching a clock and keeping a scoresheet when
the computer will give you a printout of the moves, but I find that it
helps a lot when you later set down and play a human.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

David Richerby wrote:
>
>Grackle <nowhere@lalaland.ca> wrote:
>
>> I disagree that the 2d boards are better against a computer -- would you
>> train a pilot with a simulator that only represents the world with
>> 'icons' ?
>
>I think this comparison is irrelevant. To me, chess is an abstract game
>and 2D diagrams, real boards and pictures of real boards are just physical
>representations of that abstract game.
>
>> I have a theory, so take it for what it's worth...seeing the board in 3d
>> actually requires a different form of pattern recognition for your
>> brain. If you see a bishop on a 3d board it moves towards and away from
>> you, very differently from the clean diagonals on a flat board.
>
>This is true but the problem I have with 3D boards is that I miss that
>things are attacked because pieces hide behind each other. Of course,
>this happens on a real board, too (though to a lesser extent -- all the 3D
>graphics I've seen, which isn't many, I admit, have pieces that are very
>large for the squares they're on) but I can solve that problem at a real
>board by moving my head slightly.

That's because nobody here has ever seen an actual 3D display of a
chess game. What everyone is calling "3D" is actually a 2D display.
If it were 3D you would be able to move your head and see behind a
piece. Until 3D dispays become available, the only way to play on
a real 3D board is to set up an actual board.

As for the pieces being too large, I have been advocating (with some
sucess) that every chess program with 3D boards include a 3D chess
set with a green and cream roll-up board with black and cream colored
plastic pieces like the kind most often used in tournaments, lighted
with the kind of lighting (soft, no sharp shadows) usually found in
tournaments.

Here is roughly what such a 3D set should look like:
http://www.wholesalechess.com/images/products/0150_2L.jpg
http://www.wholesalechess.com/images/products/0150_1L.jpg
http://static.zoovy.com/img/thechessstore/-/pcs210white_700
http://www.chessusa.com/store/6/60-230.jpg

If your computer's 3D set doesn't look like the above, contact the
vendor and ask them why.

If your computer's 3D set *does* look like the above, please post
a screenshot!

--
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 07:21:47 -0400, Grackle wrote:

> Btw, what software are you using that
> provides a 3d view of the board?

I use glGo. You can choose between a 2D and a 3D board (need to restart the
"module" for the change to take place), and while it does scale nicely with
the window size, you can't "tilt" the board (like you can in CMX). Still,
it's pretty nice:

http://www.pandanet.co.jp/English/glgo/

I've gotten better at it, meaning I sometimes see the trouble 2-3 moves
before the computer is going to sack a group of my stones, but usually
can't do anything to stop it. In the past few days I have been focusing on
trying to build "living" groups with two or more "eyes", with as few stones
as possible (someone recommended to practice this) and it actually seems to
help my overall performance. Also, I only really play on the 9x9 board for
now. (Bought a set in RL and actually found some unsuspecting victims to
occasionally practice with.)

> But it's fun learning the game, even if it's too late for
> me to ever become any good at it.

I think you're around my age (30s?), so no, it's not too late. It's never
too late, damnit! I think you can make it to the one digit kyu ranks in
a year or so, which isn't an unrealistic goal. By then you should be able
to beat any computer go software, which I think will be a satisfying
achivement (an ego boost only, to make up for the fact that we'll never
beat a computer at chess if it plays at full strength!).

But no doubt, I only learn/play go as an intellectual exercise and for the
entertainment value. Same way as I play chess, really, and I know I'll
never get to a 2000er rating or even close to it. If something I do in my
recreation time turns into work, I shy away from it.

M.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

Michael Vondung wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 07:21:47 -0400, Grackle wrote:
>
>> Btw, what software are you using that
>> provides a 3d view of the board?
>
>I use glGo. You can choose between a 2D and a 3D board (need to restart the
>"module" for the change to take place), and while it does scale nicely with
>the window size, you can't "tilt" the board (like you can in CMX). Still,
>it's pretty nice:
>
>http://www.pandanet.co.jp/English/glgo/

http://www.pandanet.co.jp/English/glgo/images/glgoshot9.jpg

Not bad looking at all. (the resolution will be better on the real
thing; look at the icons and menus at the top...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> This is true but the problem I have with 3D boards is that I miss that
>> things are attacked because pieces hide behind each other. Of course,
>> this happens on a real board, too (though to a lesser extent -- all the
>> 3D graphics I've seen, which isn't many, I admit, have pieces that are
>> very large for the squares they're on) but I can solve that problem at
>> a real board by moving my head slightly.
>
> That's because nobody here has ever seen an actual 3D display of a
> chess game.

I'm not sure if these guys ever did chess on their display

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/Rainbow/autostereo.html


> What everyone is calling "3D" is actually a 2D display.

Well, yes, but it gets rather tedious to say `2D projection of a 3D scene'
all the time. I think I made it perfectly clear what I meant by
distinguishing `3D boards' from `real boards'.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Incredible Poetic Tongs (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a pair of tongs but it's in verse
and it'll blow your mind!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

> This is true but the problem I have with 3D boards is that I miss that
> things are attacked because pieces hide behind each other. Of course,
> this happens on a real board, too (though to a lesser extent -- all the 3D
> graphics I've seen, which isn't many, I admit, have pieces that are very
> large for the squares they're on) but I can solve that problem at a real
> board by moving my head slightly.

Dave,

I had faced the same issue with 3D boards. I had solved this by titling the
board slightly (isometric view) in 3D view.

Somehow i still have a nagging feeling there might be an OTB advantage with
practicing in 3D board, but there is nothing to substantiate it. Your
argument of chess is essentially a 2D game makes sense - but what if the
issue is not with calculation ability (for which 2d is ideal) , but with
board vision? - may that can be developed better with a 3D board..



regards,

Walker

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

SkyWalker <Walker@Sky.com> wrote:
>> This is true but the problem I have with 3D boards is that I miss that
>> things are attacked because pieces hide behind each other.
>
> I had faced the same issue with 3D boards. I had solved this by titling
> the board slightly (isometric view) in 3D view.

I never found that helped very much.


> Somehow i still have a nagging feeling there might be an OTB advantage
> with practicing in 3D board, but there is nothing to substantiate it.

Sure, but there's nothing to refute this idea, either.


> Your argument of chess is essentially a 2D game makes sense - but what
> if the issue is not with calculation ability (for which 2d is ideal) ,
> but with board vision? - may that can be developed better with a 3D
> board..

That is a possibilty. It's not something that seems to affect me but
different people react to things in different ways. And, as I said at
some point, I get plenty of practice OTB outside tournaments anyway.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Dangerous Permanent Atom Bomb (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a weapon of mass destruction
but it'll be there for ever and it
could explode at any minute!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

My nickel:

With Chessmaster 9K I find I play the 3-D boards a lot, which I did not
expect when I bought it. For Fritz and the other Chessbase programs I
like 2-D (with marble board and USCS pieces, not the Fritz-style pieces,
which to me are annoyingly cartoony), even though the 3-D has improved a
lot in the latest release. But CM's 2-D board is too small on my
computer screen--I have a 20" monitor and even the biggest 2-D board
looks lost up there. One could argue that leaves more room for all the
other windows (evaluation, captured pieces, visual thinking, etc.) to be
open at the same time, but I don't like a cluttered screen. I try to
have it as much like playing a real person as possible when I play, and
for that all you need is the board, captured pieces, and clock and move
list.

CM9K has some very nice boards and pieces. So much so that I'm
reluctant to get CM10 because it seems they did away with lots of them
and the replacements, judging by the screenshots I've seen, aren't as
nice. I do sometimes go to the CM 2-D board with the B&W figurine
pieces, as that has a very nice clean look, but I wish the 2-D boards
were scalable.

Ah, well. Overall, Chessmaster 3-D graphics are quite impressive and
give computer competition a very "real" feel. I just wonder why they
waste so much of their time and energy on silly fantasy board and piece
combinations that no one can play in real games. Seems like every time
they add new boards and pieces they add one or two useful ones and ten
silly ones.



John

--


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

"Michael Vondung" <mvondung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:18da80apl936u$.gu65jikwwky1$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 07:21:47 -0400, Grackle wrote:
>
> I use glGo. You can choose between a 2D and a 3D board (need to restart
> the
> "module" for the change to take place), and while it does scale nicely
> with
> the window size, you can't "tilt" the board (like you can in CMX). Still,
> it's pretty nice:
>
> http://www.pandanet.co.jp/English/glgo/
>

Thanks for the link. It's hard to do a google search with the word "Go" and
find the game.

> I think you're around my age (30s?), so no, it's not too late. It's never
> too late, damnit! I think you can make it to the one digit kyu ranks in
> a year or so, which isn't an unrealistic goal. By then you should be able
> to beat any computer go software, which I think will be a satisfying
> achivement (an ego boost only, to make up for the fact that we'll never
> beat a computer at chess if it plays at full strength!).
>

Yup, in my thirties, but I think about chess, which I was playing at 13 (but
playing sporadically from then to now). Not to say I've become all that
good at it though. Looks like with Go, once I can beat a computer, I'll be
stuck with playing humans, who will probably always wipe the floor with me.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote in message
news:11jnq42mkjj29b7@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> Here is roughly what such a 3D set should look like:
> http://www.wholesalechess.com/images/products/0150_2L.jpg
> http://www.wholesalechess.com/images/products/0150_1L.jpg
> http://static.zoovy.com/img/thechessstore/-/pcs210white_700
> http://www.chessusa.com/store/6/60-230.jpg
>


I think the "Staunton Official" set in CM10 looks a lot like this, although
the pieces seem a bit too chubby.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:01:51 GMT, The Man Behind The Curtain wrote:

> as that has a very nice clean look, but I wish the 2-D boards
> were scalable.

2D boards scale in CMX. The whole interface is less cluttered also.

M.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

Michael Vondung wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:01:51 GMT, The Man Behind The Curtain wrote:
>
>
>>as that has a very nice clean look, but I wish the 2-D boards
>>were scalable.
>
>
> 2D boards scale in CMX. The whole interface is less cluttered also.
>
> M.

So I've heard. But how are the 3-D boards? The ones I've seen on the
screenshots look lousy, but then again, they tend to show their bizarre
and frankly ugly boards in their screenshots and on their boxes--just to
attract the eye of the gamer-types, I guess--while the very elegant,
clean, easy-to-look-at Staunton style 3-D board isn't pictured, but is
inside the game. There are some very nice sets in CH9K that aren't
shown in the literature anywhere. You have to buy the product on the
act of faith that nice boards are there.

What they seem to do to attract gamers is very off-putting to serious
chessplayers. Welcome to marketing, I guess. I can imagine the
arguments that they must have when their games are in production.



John

--


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven