20 Apr 09
Originally posted by VarenkaHi Varenka
Interesting post. Any example middlegames where the human doesn't know what to do, and the engine is of no help?
I understand your point about computers not being able to make "human" suggestions. e.g. cheapos in a lost position. But let's face it, most of the time we are interested in ideas that don't have flaws, with the interesting flawed examples be ...[text shortened]... pen and you'll see it littered with comments such as "Black doesn't see the mate".
Interesting post. Any example middlegames where the human doesn't know what to do,
and the engine is of no help?
Take you pick, there are millions of games on here. pick any one over 40 moves.
I want to see this.
A computer explaining the art of the middle game.
How does the human ask it a question?
The box may show all these variations and that is all it can show.
(the messages you see on the screen are not it actually speaking to you.).
I'll understand some of the variations, you may understand some of them.
But what happens if I don't.
But how does one ask a box "Why?" in a middle game position if
you do not understand why a certain move was played.
The answer may be as simple as because in two moves time
White gets a Rook to the 7th rank.
A Rook on the 7th rank. Why is that good?
So I have to follow that line and then another and another.....
In the ending you can see what is happening, there are usually only
two plans - how to queen a pawn and how stop a pawn queening.
But the Middle Game - the variations will be endless.
The middle game is far to complex. to many if's and but's,
why's and why nots.
A human or a good book surely out classes a box when it
comes to middle game instruction.
Some of It will be of value to an expeienced and good OTB player.
But to a novice....?
You make Fritz sound like it's the big Guru that has all of the answers
to all of the questions that has plagued humanity.
But let's face it, most of the time we are interested in ideas that don't have flaws,
with the interesting flawed examples being in the minority.
Hmmmm... Do you actually play OTB chess?
"...being in the minority."
99% of the time you will be looking for flaws in your opponents play,
it is how games are won OTB. punisihing mistakes.
Pure error free chess does not exist between humans
So learning how humans play chess and spotting their errors
is very important. Infact it's critical.
As for the last bit about pressing the 'X' button.......
Which side of the board is the button on - the King-side or the Queen-side.
During a game v a human there is no 'magic' button to press to see a threat.
OK joking aside.
I do not have the latest all singing, all dancing, flashing lights
and singning bells version of Fritz.
If you put the position I gave above into your Fritz and press 'X'
does it show NH5 as a threat?
If so then please take a screen dump and send it to me via Chandler Cornered.
I believe you but I'm interested and open-minded.
Open-minded being the key phrase.
Sometimes discussing the values of a computer with some of you
buffs is like discussing religion with a born again Christian.
Can you set this 'X' button to show threats all the time or
do you have to keep pressing 'X'.
How deep does it go in 'X' mode. 1 move, 2 moves, 3 moves...
20 Apr 09
Originally posted by greenpawn34Aren't you forgetting Game 4054880?
Pure error free chess does not exist between humans
20 Apr 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Dragon Firedragon fire, your argument is restricted to a very, very small amount of positions.
You will lose of course!
Please don't misinterpret the key point here. The key point is that in a "lost" position an engine will not play an "inferior" move that creates counterplay but will simply play the "best" move so, all other things being equal, it will lose.
Obviously an engine in an inferior position playing most people here will simply wi Simply really! That is one of the key differences between human play and engine play!
but if your argument is about favoring Tal (practical complications) over Kramnik (searching for the truth) for example, then we would have to change the topic.
20 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34I'm not suggesting that engines are perfect learning tools in every way. They're not. We agree on that. But I think they're more useful than you make them out to be.
I'll understand some of the variations, you may understand some of them. But what happens if I don't.
Take this same argument and apply it to a game collection book. Does the author comment on every question a reader could possibly ask? Of course not - many things go unexplained. The reader needs to think actively while reading and be prepared to figure things out too. Likewise with engine analysis. You need to work with it. Sure, some things will remain a mystery, but many things will be discovered too.
Also, most of us don't have a stronger human player to hand everytime we decide to study chess. So we can talk forever about the benefits of having a human helping us, but if we have to work alone most of the time then it's not a feasible approach to rely upon.
You make Fritz sound like it's the big Guru that has all of the answers to all of the questions that has plagued humanity.
Well if I did, sorry. It's not the case. But I will debate your other extreme view.
Do you actually play OTB chess?
Yes, my Scottish rating is just over 2000. So we're talking from the same ballpark.
99% of the time you will be looking for flaws in your opponents play, it is how games are won OTB. punisihing mistakes.
I know, you misunderstood my point. When you plan to make a move, do you assume your opponent's reply will be flawed or not? i.e. do you assume they will make mistakes? No. You assume they will find the best play but you hope to take advantage of inferior play when it does happen.
So when we analyse with an engine, we're primarily interested in what's objectivity correct. I know that OTB there are pyschological considerations but surely the correctness of a move is still a big factor. Ok, engines don't help improve our ability to bluff our way to victory but they help our objectivity.
If you put the position I gave above into your Fritz and press 'X' does it show NH5 as a threat?
Or in the engine analysis window, can you right-click and see the "Analyse threat..." option? My Fritz isn't recent either.
Sometimes discussing the values of a computer with some of you buffs is like discussing religion with a born again Christian
🙂 Sure, and you represent the other extreme. These discussions won't "convert" anyone; it's just an interesting clash of opinions.
Can we take a concrete example of a middlegame and see what we can figure out with engine help? If so, you pick a game so that we don't debate whether my example was biased. Supply the game in PGN and we can work at it with engines.
20 Apr 09
Originally posted by diskamylI am not talking about positions I am talking about principles.
dragon fire, your argument is restricted to a very, very small amount of positions.
but if your argument is about favoring Tal (practical complications) over Kramnik (searching for the truth) for example, then we would have to change the topic.
In any position a good human player who is "lost" will seek "inferior" moves that create counter play and cheapo possibilities rather than the "best" moves that simply delay the inevitable and lose.
He might lose quicker but it is the human thing to do. It applies in every position where a player is losing and seeks to create counter play.
20 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34How statements like "You will learn more from humans that you ever will from a box" or "Playing a human at chess if totally different from playing a box" supports your statement "Playing a computer constantly will seriously damage your chess"?
You will learn more from humans that you ever will from a box.
"Playing a computer constantly will seriously damage your chess" seems to be absurd."
A lot of good players agree with this absurd notion.
Playing a human at chess if totally diffenrent from playing a box.
There will be things you pick up from playing box but you will
learn how to g traps, unsound tricks
and outright blunders. If you have never seen them before.......
Statement "A lot of good players agree with this absurd notion." is nothing without quoting arguments of these "a lot of good players".
The same empty babbling is claims like "There will be things you pick up from playing box but you will learn how to play Chess by playing humans."
I don`t understand difference between being beaten by engine or by human - clever players learn from their mistakes independently if they have been made against human or engine. Good engine will exploit your mistakes much more effective than most of humans - and human (which mistakes were exploited) can learn how not to make them and how to exploit them against other humans.
Also the rest of your text does not explain how "Playing a computer constantly will seriously damage your chess". It seems to me that cheap traps are considered as real chess by you and you are unhappy that engine don`t set them or fall into them.
20 Apr 09
Originally posted by CimonHi Cimon.
How statements like "You will learn more from humans that you ever will from a box" or "Playing a human at chess if totally different from playing a box" supports your statement "Playing a computer constantly will seriously damage your chess"?
Statement "A lot of good players agree with this absurd notion." is nothing without quoting arguments of these "a l ...[text shortened]... eal chess by you and you are unhappy that engine don`t set them or fall into them.
I don`t understand difference between being beaten by engine or
by human - clever players learn from their mistakes
You learn from your losses - you really do learn from your defeats.
You admitted that yourself. ...clever players learn from their mistakes
To retain a memory you have to have the emotional experiance.
You must 'feel the burn.'
Now unless you can charge your self up for a game v a computer,
adrenalin rush, butterflies etc etc.
Then the loss you have v a computer will not have the same effect.
Nothing learned. No Scars, Waste of time.
(see my post to Varenka - followwing on from this, regarding this matter)
Statement "A lot of good players agree with this absurd notion." is
nothing without quoting arguments of these "a lot of good players".
it appears that some good players on here do agree there is a vast
difference between playing v a human and playing v a box.
You only have to go over all the other weary threads to see who
is on whose side. But it was bit petty of me to drag them in again.
And what was the last bit?
It seems to me that cheap traps are considered as real chess by
you and you are unhappy that engine don`t set them or fall into them.
🙂
20 Apr 09
Originally posted by VarenkaHi Verenka
I'm not suggesting that engines are perfect learning tools in every way. They're not. We agree on that. But I think they're more useful than you make them out to be.
[b]I'll understand some of the variations, you may understand some of them. But what happens if I don't.
Take this same argument and apply it to a game collection book. Does the a ...[text shortened]... was biased. Supply the game in PGN and we can work at it with engines.[/b]
Off course I knew you were an OTB player and have a good idea
who you actually are.
This quote amused me:
"I know, you misunderstood my point. When you plan to make a move,
do you assume your opponent's reply will be flawed or not? i.e.
do you assume they will make mistakes? No"
Afraid you have me wrong. My answer is YES.
I expect every one of my opponents moves to be a blunder.
I tell you the moment a pawn is pushed the person I'm playing
is a my mug for today and all I have to do is spot his blunder and win.
The first emotion I go though when I lose an OTB game is complete
surprise. "How did I lose a game of chess?"
I'm not suggesting that engines are perfect learning tools in
every way. They're not. We agree on that. But I think they're more
useful than you make them out to be.
I thought I was being very generous to the computer and it does
appear you agree with about it's limitations in copying human play.
Take this same argument and apply it to a game collection book.
Does the author comment on every question a reader could possibly
ask?
A well annotated game should leave few questions unanswered.
The writer will have spotted the critical moment and explained what
happens next with few if any variaitions.
A box cannot recognise the critical moment in a game.
You are a good OTB player, you know what I mean about the critical
moment - the point in the game where the next move wins it or losses it.
A box has not got a hope in hell of recognising a critical moment
in a game. To it all positions are the same.
I did not say a book has all the answers - but you are claiming a
computer can show you a direct and correct path in the middle game.
These discussions won't "convert" anyone; it's just an interesting clash of opinions.
Again you have not got me - I can turn on a sixpence.
If you can convince me then I'm won over,
It's one of my strengths as a chess player.
If I make a bad move and realise it's a bad move I have no
qualms at all about admitting it to myself and I will change mid-stream.
Won plenty of games v players who will not admit this and try to
make a bad move work.
Select a middle game positon
Smyslov - Trufunovic, Zagreb 1955
Postion after Black 10th move.
Position after White's 16th move
Position after White's 20th move.
I've not selected a trick game - this is a good game of chess.
Now you show me an idea you got from a computer to win a game on here.
Not a game where you used a computer. You have not.
Remember the original post - will playing a computer help me improve.
I want a game you have played v a computer where you used an
idea you got from a computer to win a game on here.
Give full game and date of the computer game and then the game
you won on here.
New food for thought
Studying though via monitor v studying on a full set.
We do look at things differently on a monitor than we do in 3d.
Try this experiment.
When you talk to some in the street, in the pub, anywhere you always
look into their eyes. Always the eyes.
You are drawn to their eyes.
Look at your television. When someone is talking what are you
looking at? Their mouth, always the mouth.
You are drawn to their mouth, you have to force yourself to look
away from their mouth when they speak.
You not only need to hear the words, you need to see them being formed.
The brain requires this double take to absorb what is being said.
When we look at position on a monitor (television) what are we
not seeing that is there when we look at a position in 3D?
No 3D pattern.
21 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34I never claimed that there is no difference between playing vs humans and playing vs engine.
Hi Cimon.
[b]I don`t understand difference between being beaten by engine or
by human - clever players learn from their mistakes
You learn from your losses - you really do learn from your defeats.
You admitted that yourself. ...clever players learn from their mistakes
To retain a memory you have to have the emotional experiance. ess by
you and you are unhappy that engine don`t set them or fall into them.
[/b]
🙂[/b]
I agree that some things you will learn better playing with humans.
But how it bases your statement that "Playing a computer constantly will seriously damage your chess"?
Some things humans do better than engines and vice versa - some things engines do better than humans. Even modern top GMs have learned a lot from engines. Engines helped to change opinion about many positions which were considered as unplayable in pre-computer era.
So where is logic in your claim that engine is worse?
By the way - do you (or anyone else) know any player who have damaged his chess playing vs engine? I don`t.
And your claims that playing vs engine will not give you emotional experience are empty and don`t match with my own experience. I remember how I felt after some crushing defeats from my engine.
21 Apr 09
1 edit
I certainly believe my chess was damaged by playing engines too much. I gave up playing "real" chess for about ten years and during that time played almost exclusively against computer programs on my PC. My style changed from being quite attacking and sacrificial to being very defensive. This is because my attacks would be refuted by even a relatively weak engine and to beat them I had to play slow, methodical attacks. Similarly, because the engines never made unsound attacks themselves, I lost the knack of defending properly. When I returned to over-the-board chess four years ago it took me several seasons before I remembered how to play against humans again and I lost many games to speculative sacrifices.
21 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by CimonHi Cimon - welcome back.
I never claimed that there is no difference between playing vs humans and playing vs engine.
I agree that some things you will learn better playing with humans.
But how it bases your statement that "Playing a computer constantly will seriously damage your chess"?
Some things humans do better than engines and vice versa - some things engines do better ...[text shortened]... atch with my own experience. I remember how I felt after some crushing defeats from my engine.
Your quote:
....I remember how I felt after some crushing defeats from my engine.
This next piece I have simply copied and pasted (spelling mistakes and all)
from another site where this topic came up.
I'm not in the habit of promoting other sites ('cept my own).
http://chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandler.php
Google - 'computer bad for your chess' and a whole new world will open up.
This post sounds aimed at you.
I've highlighted the relevant text.
If you play a lot of games against compters where you cleanly care
about the result of the game
you may minimally develop a passive or strictlly reactive style of play
just in order to survice aginst stronger programs.
and this was answered with...
"a friend of mine plays Shredsder every single day in a rapid merrily
game. Though this is a fairly good trianuing for defence, a side effect
is that he has highly developed a very passive style (just trying to
resist and deliberately get the physically draw), avoids tactics like the
plague (which is good agiasnt the computer, but not agaisnt humans),
and has some difficulties winning against weaker players"
I apologise for their spelling mistakes. - it is a straight cut and paste.
There is money being made from selling engines.
A few words from a handful of experienced players in fourms will
not challenge the pretty coloured hype that sells these engines.
I have clearly stated that a box has a lot to offer to chess.
There is evidnence that it can also do untold damage.