Originally posted by greenpawn34this is like referring to a man whose ability to walk has decreased because of using cars too frequently, to prove cars are bad and walking all the time is good.
Rybka should have spotted something at those time scales.
I not saying there was, I remember looking at this game
years ago and finding a trick or two that perhaps would have
worked OTB.
Debate about Bishops and Knights brought this game forward
in my mind.
It's testament to what a brilliant player Smyslov was
from '53 - '58 (his peak - tho and dismiss bad positional play from the box.
I'd like to think it was the former.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Which game was it that you glad you drew
Black (myself) to play.
Here the game was drawn. But my evaluation was superficial and incorrect. I saw the bishop already performing an attacking and defending role on two sides on the board. My knight is way back on e8 for now, and I have to consider White's rook coming into play via the c/d files and attacking the Black pawns from the 7th rank. Just looked to me like Black was going to have more problems than White; though not necessarily losing. Engine analysis shows that Black is fine. The concrete lines don't support my worries.
By-the-way, I hope you didn't think this was bishop pair example. It's just an example of post-analysis with an engine helping to improve my understanding of these type of endgames (rook plus minor piece).
As a general comment, if we regard books, engines, human coaches, etc. all as various tools to help improve our chess, then we know they each have their own advangtages/disadvantages. I don't see any of them as a single solution. And each can be used effectively or abused. If people abuse engine analysis and become lazy then that's a result of poor practice and doesn't prove that proper practice is ineffective.
Read your note about the Rook coming down the c & d file.
Decided to plan against that.
Saw Knight can go to f6 tempo gain-d7-c5.
On c5 (dark square) it blocks c-file and holds d7 (no 7th penertration).
Is that how box sees it - or am I barking mad.
Intersting bit then followed.
"As a general comment, if we regard books, engines, human coaches,
etc. all as various tools to help improve our chess..."
Whoa....Stop there.
The computer has a chess teaching history of 15 years tops.
Books and coaches over 200 years .
Books and coaches has given us every great and imaginative
chess player from Morphy - Kaparov.
Books and coaches have a proven track record.
The value of a computer as a teaching aid has yet to be determined.
The electronic generation has yet to leave it mark on chess history.
I've never heard anyone say constantly reading chess books
is bad for your chess.
It was this method of study that has produced all the greatest
players in chess history up to Kasparov.
Originally posted by greenpawn34you don't know anything about using computers. you sound like you've found the ultimate best way for chess players to improve, but after years and years of chess reading and writing, your rating hasn't even gone past 2000 on here.
Intersting bit then followed.
"As a general comment, if we regard books, engines, human coac of study that has produced [b]all the greatest
players in chess history up to Kasparov.[/b]
don't talk on these forums with a tone like you're the expert that's it. you're like a blind man criticizing a view.
and if you think talented young masters of today aren't using computers almost exclusively for analysis, you are very naive.
P.S: read the latest Anand interview on chessbase.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Anand recently said:
The value of a computer as a teaching aid has yet to be determined.
"Definitely I respect Karpov a lot. He is really the generation before and he doesn’t have a good feel for the computer’s influence. I would say nowadays it is impossible to work without computers. And you don’t become mechanical at all. It allows you to do incredibly creative things. I mean there are positions I can work on where it was not feasible to work on alone. The amount of work is too much. But now with the machine you can break it down so easily. At one level, in one sense, I would agree with him. Certain areas in chess have become mechanical but in some new areas creativity flowers."
Hi Varenka and Diskmayl
I'm getting it in stereo now.
OK let's do this in bits.
you don't know anything about using computers.
They have there place as a training aid and at the moment I am trying a lot different methods
using a computer's abilities to see which one works the best.
I'm talking about the best way I can coach a player over the net and not face to face.
I think I have found a method and the feedback so far has been very encouraging.
I think the way I have found may actually be better as the computer has a lot
facilites I can use.
I am waiting permission from one source then I will share this idea with the
main chess forum - I need some serious feedback because if this idea is the way
forward then I'll stick with it.
I'm not blowing my trumpet I am telling you this to show I'm not stubborn with a blinkered point of view
you sound like you've found the ultimate best way for chess players to improve,
Book study has a proven track record. I'm not claiming I've discovered it - the proof over
the past 200 years is there.
but after years and years of chess reading and writing, your rating hasn't even gone past 2000 on here.
I'm an OTB player. My games on here are how I would play OTB - traps, traps and more traps.
Look at my losses, if the trap does not work. I'm lost.
I play to enjoy myself and I enjoy playing like I do.
Don't be taken in by a high grade on here. A grade is not a measurement of an IQ.
You are letting numbers rule your judgement in assesing people as you are letting += =+ symbols
tell you if a positon is good or bad without actually looking at the board.
For the record: My OTB grade in the 1980's was way over 2000,
it dipped when I stopped studying to 1850 now it's up to 2000 again.
I've not got better - the players I'm playing now are not as good
as good as the players I used to play.
Something is happening...the standard at the low and middle sections
has fallen. Players in these sections are making god awful terrible
one move blunders, the like of which I never saw when I was at my peak.
Something is happening.... and I'm pointing my finger at constant
playing/studying with a computer.
don't talk on these forums with a tone like you're the expert that's it. you're like a blind man criticizing a view
If I appear to have a 'tone' it's because I carefully choose my words to give my posts a tone.
It's done on purpose to be heard. If you think I'm coming across like an 'expert' then it's working.
...you're like a blind man criticizing a view
You have an opinion that only 2000+ players should express a valid opinion.
So when someone posts, you click on the poster - see thier grade and
if it is lower than 2000 you ignore what they have to say .
..and you are calling ME blind.
The original question. The opening post.
I am looking for opinions on chess engines , and specifically if there is anything of value you can learn from them ,
or does one develop bad habits playing against an engine.
I've stated openly yes there are things of value to learn from a computer.
I, and others have stated one does develop bad habits and there is evidence that constant playing them is restriciting development,
nulling creativity and breeding a whole school of very clumsy OTB players.
and if you think talented young masters of today aren't using computers
almost exclusively for analysis, you are very naive
Have I claimed talented young masters aren't using computers?
I said we have yet to see their legacy.
If it is going to produce Anand's and Kramniks, then chess is dead.
The famous Anand Quote:
This is being waved about like a flag of truth.
The words of wisdom have been spoken, burn our books and plug in.
Where did you see theses wise words of Solomon?
On Chessbase .
If you are going throw GM quotes at me.
Don't use advertising jingo from a site who will benefit financially.
Anand's quote could have been written by a PR man.
I wonder how much they paid Anand for his interview.
If he gave a bad interview and said things they did not want to hear
would they give it such a high profile.
Also, he would not be invited back.
Don't bit the hand that feeds you.
Read between the lines boys, (it's how proper chess player's think 'out of the box').
Originally posted by greenpawn34Your attack on Anand was cheap.
Hi Varenka and Diskmayl
I'm getting it in stereo now.
OK let's do this in bits.
[b]you don't know anything about using computers.
They have there place as a training aid and at the moment I am trying a lot different methods
using a computer's abilities to see which one works the best.
I'm talking about the best way I can coach a player o ...[text shortened]... roper chess player's think 'out of the box').[/b]
Claims like "Something is happening...the standard at the low and middle sections has fallen. Players in these sections are making god awful terrible one move blunders, the like of which I never saw when I was at my peak." need to be based on facts.
Arguments like "Book study has a proven track record. I'm not claiming I've discovered it - the proof over the past 200 years is there." are very old and always were used against any kind of progress.
Originally posted by CimonHi Cimon - So I've woken you up as well.
Your attack on Anand was cheap.
Claims like "Something is happening...the standard at the low and middle sections has fallen. Players in these sections are making god awful terrible one move blunders, the like of which I never saw when I was at my peak." need to be based on facts.
Arguments like "Book study has a proven track record. I'm not claiming I' ...[text shortened]... past 200 years is there." are very old and always were used against any kind of progress.
Your attack on Anand was cheap.
Which one?
Chess is dead?
I find his play sterile and placid - my opinion that's all.
....and his attack on Karpov (and every pre-computer master) was cheap.
As for facts - I told you, I've not got better, therefore....the players
I'm playing have got worse.
Arguments like "Book study has a proven track record. I'm not claiming I've discovered it -
the proof over the past 200 years is there." are very old and always were used against any kind of progress.
So argue against it.
Point out where book and set study is bad for your chess.
I claim studying and playing with a computer can damage your chess.
I'm putting forth evidence backed up by other chess players.
I'm getting hit with things I did not say. quotes from GM's who
have a vested interest in keeping on the right side of a company.
My abilty as chess player attacked and now I'm being called
a Luddite.
Charming........😉
PS: You always know when you have won an argument when the
other side starts hurling insults at you. 🙂
Originally posted by greenpawn34" ...you're like a blind man criticizing a view
You have an opinion that only 2000+ players should express a valid opinion.
So when someone posts, you click on the poster - see thier grade and
if it is lower than 2000 you ignore what they have to say . "
with that I meant you don't really know much about computer chess, so you're criticizing something you don't know.
and of course I don't have such stupid opinions. my rating is much lower than yours.
I just tried to point out that there's no single best way to study chess with guaranteed success (by referring to you as an example), and you should stop writing things like there is one proven way and that it's studying with books.
Originally posted by greenpawn34no insults.
PS: You always know when you have won an argument when the
other side starts hurling insults at you. 🙂
about computer usage in high quality chess (which you claim has yet to prove itself):
I'm pretty sure 99% of high-level professional chess players (IM or above) have Rybka 3 and one of the likes of Fritz, Hiarcs etc on their computer, and use them regularly for analysis.
do you watch press conferences of super GMs after their games? the phrase "well it looked 'such and such' to me over the board but of course it has to be computer checked" is heard almost all the time.
have you seen Kasparov's Predecessors book? almost every page a chess engine (namely Fritz) is quoted for analysis. and although not cited, I'm pretty sure every serious chess author uses computers for the analysis they present.
and about Anand being paid by chessbase. I agree with Cimon, that accusation does look a little cheap. he always seemd like a very nice and witty guy to me, and he doesn't need that kind of stuff. no body does at that level. (except the stupid Topalov thrash, of course!). Kasparov is known to be one of the best at using computers for analysis, and by the looks of it he actually loves this thing! Kramnik has said very similar things about usage of computers before. Anand does the same, nothing strange, nothing itchy, and makes perfect sense to me.
and above all, I really can't understand the core of your argument here. The way I see it, there's a chess entity living very close to you, to be precise, living on your computer. It's a chess monster both positionally (although people still don't admit this) and of course tactically. there sure must be a way to make very good use of this, don't you think?
and the argument about chess engines not being able to explain a position to you. well, under a certain level, I think this might be true. as a 1600 rated player, it was somewhat difficult for me to understand the reasoning behind Rybka's thinking. but after some general concepts of chess are understood more clearly (of course with the help of books and human annotations), it's not really rocket science to understand why it rejects certain lines and prefers some over others. and that makes it one hell of a treasure there, always at your service, any time you want, you can have the best chess analysis at your disposal. I must admit there are certain positions why I still can't understand the reason behind some decisions, but it is absolutely the same for many human-annotated games I have gone through. you just have to give it some thought. no one here is telling you the computer alone will make you better.
for many years, people, including GMs, were waiting impatiently for the next informant to come out. have you ever seen one? of course you have. (for ones that haven't, it's simply a collection of recent games annotated usually by super GMs, but only contains variations and symbols like +/-.) well, think of it this way: now everybody (above a certain level of understanding of concepts, like I mentioned in the previous paragraph) can make their own informants, including any games they want (including their own), and usually with a better quality of analysis.
and for the record, I believe the single most important thing for chess improvement is analyzing positions yourself. making your brain hurt. but to me, analyzing your analysis with a trusted engine is a must for this to work.
Originally posted by diskamylI think you've hit on the crux of the issue, at least as how it affects a patzer at my level. Although an engine like Rybka might be able to make great positional moves, if it can't tell me why it's making the moves (or if I can't read the silicon tea leaves correctly), then it's not much use to me. I still use engines for tactical checks, though.
and the argument about chess engines not being able to explain a position to you. well, under a certain level, I think this might be true. as a 1600 rated player, it was somewhat difficult for me to understand the reasoning behind Rybka's thinking. but after some general concepts of chess are understood more clearly (of course with the help of books and human ...[text shortened]... have to give it some thought. no one here is telling you the computer alone will make you better.
Dan Heisman likes to say that for the average player, you need to read over lots of annotated master games...That you want all of the old masters to be constantly whispering in your ear, explaining to you the reasons for their moves. If they could ever create an engine that could talk to you like the masters in annotated games books, then it seems to me that would be almost the perfect engine.
Diskmaly
OK but..
"...and you should stop writing things like there is one proven way and that it's studying with books."
But...it is a proven way that works.
The jury must still be out on the computer.
I do really wish Anand had given examples of how a computer aided his
creativity when he gave his endorsement.
(and I do believe it's an endorsement - he has not said it anywhere
else - why should he if he's not getting paid for it. and that is OK with me.
Make as much as you can while you can....but the damage it may be doing....
I'm looking out for you guys, not fighting you guys).
I've still to hear from anyone who had a creative idea from a computer
that won them a game.
I'm not being obstinate - I want to know. Show me, that all I ask
of You, Varenka, Cimon and now Anand - show me, I want know.
If there has been one, it's a very well kept secret.
Originally posted by Romanticusfor what it's worth, this is how I intend to do it myself:
I'm also a dinosaur(pre-engine),I have no clue how to use the thing except to check for missed tactics.Could/would any of the engine savvy people explain to me how I perform an [b]interactive analyses of one of my losses?[/b]
analyze the game yourself first, by moving the pieces around, and make sure you also note down variations instead of lazy general concepts.
then open fritz or chessbase or whatever GUI you're using, and use "infinite analysis" (the one where it analyzes the current position for an infinite amount of time, that is, until you change the position yourself), and check the game and your post-mortem variations, and never hesitate to feed it with alternate moves, which would translate to asking "why not this, why not that?" etc. it won't give you verbal reasons, so it's always a good idea to ask a lot of those questions, and also to try to verbalize the engine moves with notes. it may be difficult but it will make more sense as you get better. all of this is given that it's a positionally good engine of course. Crafty never makes sense to me.
use these examples at your own risk, but here are several of my games where I try to implement the exact mentioned process:
http://blog.chess.com/diskamyl
Originally posted by greenpawn34I've still to hear from anyone who had a creative idea from a computer that won them a game.
Why are you making this the single point of judgement? As you correctly point out, prior to computers becoming popular, we already had tons of chess literature in the way of books. Many, many ideas had already been discovered. But can a typical player employ these perfectly in his own play? No. Because often we don't know which ideas are most relevant in a given position. e.g. should I play for a minority attack on the queenside or do I have a quicker win via the "Greek gift" sacrifice. The ideas still have to be verified and engines can help a lot here. So, computers may not be resposible for creating such ideas in the first place but they definitely help us develop our judgement and application of such ideas.
Computers have been responsible for many opening novelties in recent years. They've also refined our understanding of many endgames.
Finally, while I don't agree with your dismissing of Anand (give him some credit, he doesn't make a fool of himself just to help Chessbase), here's Dvoretsky from his Analytical Manual: "In our day and age, computer analysis have become the standard workaday tool of almost every chessplayer, from World Champion to garden-variety amateur". Has this world class trainer got it wrong too?