not to mention all the auto-generated 'dossier'/'prepare against/etc.' reports that are not essential but nice to have, and are not available in Fritz. So, for example, it's much more difficult to merge some model games at key point of your own move list, to create an Informant style layout.Īlso, single database means you cannot have smaller datasets flagged as 'repertoire' that you can cross-reference with your bigger data sources, you cannot flag multiple moves as 'critical xx position' and have Chessbase automatically apply a unique search mask to the entire set to fetch games that are relevant to those positions, and so on and so forth. CTG file), which shows best alternatives and stats, like many other 'opening explorer' but not the source games, like Chessbase does in 'Reference' mode. if you want to compare the moves you are analyzing against a set of games, you can't at most you can compare the notation with a static tree (a precompiled. this is significant, because the multi database/multi dataset/multi board approach of Chessbase allows for many powerful jobsįor starters, there is no 'Reference' db in Fritz and no 'Reference' view you can simply browse a single list of games, apply filters and load the desired one into the board. One key aspect is this: Fritz works only with one database at the time, and one board at the time. If you go a bit deeper into opening preparation, then there's much more difference than on the surface between the two. If you want to use them as viewers for commented games, or to create your personal archive for analyzing your games with the help of an engine, then yes, there is overlap and the function in Fritz are already enough. Chessbase has like a couple more database functions than Fritz but the vast majority of chess players won't care about it. Tbh I'm not sure why they have both available, when they could just merge them.

Fritz is almost strictly better than Chessbase.

Fritz chess database