When I finish a game with Fritz 8 I try to get an analysis
by clicking Tools - Analysis - Full Analysis from the menu.
Then, according to the instructions, I can get verbal
commentary and training questions by selecting the "verbose"
and "training" options. However, when the computer has
finished calculating the analysis all I get is a list of
moves with some written comments and a few variations. How
do I access the verbose and training bits? Is there a way to
play the whole game from the start like a movie, together
with Fritz's commentary?
Thanks,

Marco


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Marco" wrote in message news:de2e755e31f7496ae98c7df5e5543708.122502@myga te.mailgate.org...
When I finish a game with Fritz 8 I try to get an analysis
by clicking Tools - Analysis - Full Analysis from the menu.
Then, according to the instructions, I can get verbal
commentary and training questions by selecting the "verbose"
and "training" options. However, when the computer has
finished calculating the analysis all I get is a list of
moves with some written comments and a few variations. How
do I access the verbose and training bits? Is there a way to
play the whole game from the start like a movie, together
with Fritz's commentary?
Thanks,

Marco


I to would love somme in depht stuff on fritz 8............thks

Marco wrote:
When I finish a game with Fritz 8 I try to get an analysis by clicking
Tools - Analysis - Full Analysis from the menu. Then, according to the
instructions, I can get verbal commentary and training questions by
selecting the "verbose" and "training" options. However, when the
computer has finished calculating the analysis all I get is a list of
moves with some written comments and a few variations.

I think you're confusing "verbal" (=spoken) with "verbose" (=using lots of
words). The written comments are the results of the verbose option.
This is misnamed, in my opinion -- there's a bit of a tradition of giving
Unix commands a "verbose" option which means that they'll produce all
imaginable output. This is usually too much (which is why it's called,
"verbose mode") and is only occasionally used. Fritz's "verbose" comments
are usually not at all verbose and should just be called "natural
langauge".

The training option will insert quiz questions into the game which you can
see when replaying it. I'm not sure if every game will have quiz
questions inserted, though.

I realise that Fritz comes with a pretty poor manual but all of that is,
covered on page 12.


Is there a way to play the whole game from the start like a movie,
together with Fritz's commentary?

Not as far as I'm aware.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Revolting Permanent Priest (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man of the cloth but it'll be
there for ever and turn your stomach!

"David Richerby" wrote in message


I think you're confusing "verbal" (=spoken) with "verbose" (=using lots of
words). The written comments are the results of the verbose option.
This is misnamed, in my opinion -- there's a bit of a tradition of giving
Unix commands a "verbose" option which means that they'll produce all
imaginable output. This is usually too much (which is why it's called,
"verbose mode") and is only occasionally used. Fritz's "verbose" comments
are usually not at all verbose and should just be called "natural
langauge".

Many thanks for your feedback. By the way, what does it mean
when in an analysis Fritz uses signs like + on top of a - (or
an equal sign)?

Marco


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Marco wrote:

[...] By the way, what does it mean
when in an analysis Fritz uses signs like + on top of a - (or
an equal sign)?

You may find the following link illuminating:

http://www.markalowery.net/Chess/Symbols/symbols.html

Best regards,

Sidney

Sidney Cadot wrote:
You may find the following link illuminating:

http://www.markalowery.net/Chess/Symbols/symbols.html

Thanks! Could somebody who knows about these things vouch for their
accuracy? I wouldn't ask but his page on general notation[1] contains
several errors, such as

o claiming that ++ denotes double check (there's no specific symbol for
this in any of the algebraic systems I've seen and, in the form of
descriptive notation I'm familiar with, it denotes checkmate),

o claiming that `en or e.n. or (en) or (e.n.)' denotes en-passant capture
when he surely means `ep' and variants, but either way, SAN doesn't have
any notation for en passant,

o claiming that `Kn' is an obsolete notation for a knight, when he surely
means `Kt'.


Dave.

[1] http://www.markalowery.net/Chess/Notation/notation.html

--
David Richerby Electronic Nuclear Car (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a high-performance luxury car that's
made of atoms but it uses electricity!

David Richerby wrote:

o claiming that ++ denotes double check (there's no specific symbol for
this in any of the algebraic systems I've seen

It does occur -- I've seen it in solutions to chess problems from
pre-1900. Discovered check is sometimes identified as well.

But it's certainly obsolete by now.

--
Anders Thulin http://www.algonet.se/~ath

Anders Thulin wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
o claiming that ++ denotes double check (there's no specific symbol
for this in any of the algebraic systems I've seen

It does occur -- I've seen it in solutions to chess problems from
pre-1900. Discovered check is sometimes identified as well.

That's an interesting snippet of information. :-) I think I've seen
`dis. ch.' and `dbl. ch.' in games in descriptive notation but never
symbols for those things.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Pickled Tool (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ screwdriver but it's preserved in
vinegar!