24 Apr 09
Hi Diskmayl
read you 2nd post.
You are making valid points there.
Strong players use engines to analyse their games. OK.
Still need a creative idea that has won a game.
I still refer to original post.
Can it help me - YES
Will it do damage to my play? - yes (note lower case = there is a
possibility it can)
One of the first things you quickly learn when studying with books
is to mistrust every word and check every variation if you think you
are going to get involved in that line.
You must check everything for yourself. It's part of your development
as a player.
If you get used to all this exact box analysis then you start to trust it.
There are no errors. You stop checking,
You lose your mistrust, you sense of danger, you fail to develop.
How can you - a machine is doing the thinking for you.
Another poster states that your style of play becomes alien as you
adapt to play v a computer and not a human/
This trust transforms to books and then onto the board.
You stop looking for your opponents errors because you cannot
spot them anymore.
Witness Anand's 6 move loss when he saw a 6 move draw in an
Informator, trusted it, and then played the moves in a game.
Even then his sense of danger dod not alert him.
That is typical box player syndrome.
I bet he learned something that day.
We have drifted all over the place.
I say constant playing the computer will damage your chess.
Which was the original question.
I've cited all my reasons and have not been convinced to the contary.
24 Apr 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Mad RookI agree with that, having a GM whispering my ear would be just perfect 🙂.
I 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.
Dan He ...[text shortened]... ters in annotated games books, then it seems to me that would be almost the perfect engine.
but I never could find the book of my dreams: games annotated in such way that there are no ideas or tactical opportunities go unmentioned by the author. you still have to do the work. it just makes you aware that such things -concepts- exist. but in actuality you still have to find ways around them while calculating variations.
and I forgot to mention this: I believe in the idea that positional chess is learned mainly through osmosis, and that general explanations are overrated.
there's nothing too conscious in chess. give a 1900 rated player a good engine and a good deal of time, and you may not tell difference between his analysis and Lev Alburt's.
I believe it's about seeing certain moves made in certain situations. of course you first have to have to be aware of the concepts (which is the human annotator's job), but going through variations all the time and seeing when and where they come up over and over, having the feeling when a certain move is OK or not, when to push f4, where to develop the queen etc is another thing.
I mean, praising pushing f4 is really easy. of course, it's just the right time to initiate the attack with f4, isn't it? the center seems stabilized, the bishops eye h7 and g7, what the hell were you thinking, of course f4 is nice. but in real positions, it very rarely is. and I think that is why dvoretsky is such an excellent author, that is why Kasparov became so great, and that is why I'll keep using engines for analysis.
I'm aware that I sound like a fanboy here, but spending some serious time with Rybka 3, I think it's just a fantastic tool for that.
edit:
read Varenka's previous post now. "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. " this is exactly what I'm trying to tell.
24 Apr 09
1 edit
Hi Varenka.
I want the creative idea because I think it was you who stated
that playing a chess computer aids creativity.
I'll put that one to bed if you agree it does not.
If not, then firnish an example.
The quote:
"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?
Yet another quote to dismantle -you are only seeing what you
want to see. Look at it like you would a chess move.
I can spin that around anyway I want.
He is stating a fact - He does not say this is a good thing.
The preceeding bit may well be....
"Playing a computer is bad for you but in our day and age......etc"
He does not say PLAYING a computer will help you.
He is simply telling you what is happening "In our day and age."
What else...Anand
I'll agree Anand is a good guy, - never met him, he's not done ME any harm.
Just finished off his Best games book
OK I guess but it will gather dust I'm afraid.
Think I'll ebay it and quote the DATABASE advert. I'll make a million.
24 Apr 09
Originally posted by greenpawn34playing against engines? well that's another issue. I thought we were talking about analyzing with engines.
Hi Diskmayl
read you 2nd post.
You are making valid points there.
Strong players use engines to analyse their games. OK.
Still need a creative idea that has won a game.
I still refer to original post.
Can it help me - YES
Will it do damage to my play? - yes (note lower case = there is a
possibility it can)
One of the first things ...[text shortened]... e original question.
I've cited all my reasons and have not been convinced to the contary.
I played regularly against Rybka around the time I was OK for a 1500-1600 rated player tactically, but I knew very little about the game. I mean, a whole game from the beginning to end. opening, planning, etc.
I think it helped me a lot at that stage. I saw how vulnerable I was at certain themes. I certainly don't think it would damage your game in any way if you play against humans from time to time too, but not so sure if time would be better spent playing against a very strong human online. but they are very hard to find, especially for long games.
I think if it's done in cycles, like having a week of playing against rybka every three months and trying to spot your biggest weaknesses etc, it could be helpful. especially for higher rated players than me, because for me it's still about not hanging that damn pawn!
24 Apr 09
6 edits
Originally posted by greenpawn34not sure what you mean by "creative ideas", but I'll put it this way:
Hi Varenka.
I want the creative idea because I think it was you who stated
that playing a chess computer aids creativity.
I'll put that one to bed if you agree it does not.
If not, then firnish an example.
The quote:
"In our day and age, computer analysis have become the standard
workaday tool of almost every chessplayer, from World C 'm afraid.
Think I'll ebay it and quote the DATABASE advert. I'll make a million.
very few people on earth actually analyze games played by two engines. (I'm not into it, but few people are.)
if you're suggesting that engines are incapable of finding creative ideas, then it's downright wrong.
if you're suggesting that engines are incapable of helping people find creative ideas: that is because humans dominate the chess literature! I mean come on. it's so obvious. if half of chess books would be dedicated to games where at least one side is an engine, and people would actually read that stuff and find it interesting, I mean, if we could make everything else equal and evaluate the situation purely chess-wise, then people would be filled with creative ideas learned from engines, and even more so compared to human games.
that is one thing. the second thing is, I analyze with engines all the time, and I learn a lot. I can't name certain ideas or concepts, but I'm pretty sure my general vision (not tactical vision, but finding candidate moves or "ways to go" ) and feeling of "what to do here" has certainly improved.
and GP, you owe me several hours of tactics training. I was supposed to sharpen up with training after a rusty week and even play a game tonight.
24 Apr 09
Originally posted by diskamylI've been saying all along I think the box has a lot to offer
playing against engines? well that's another issue. I thought we were talking about analyzing with engines.
I played regularly against Rybka around the time I was OK for a 1500-1600 rated player tactically, but I knew very little about the game. I mean, a whole game from the beginning to end. opening, planning, etc.
I think it helped me a lot at tha ...[text shortened]... or higher rated players than me, because for me it's still about not hanging that damn pawn!
but the very first question from the OP was will playing a box
damage my chess.
We drifted all over the place there.
I like your quote:
I believe in the idea that positional chess is learned mainly through
osmosis, and that general explanations are overrated.
On the same ground here.
Also, and I'm not turning this againt you. Or trying to score a point.
Remember the IM who lost his tactcial ability by over use of Fritz.
(he called it Fritz) but retained his positinal play.
Once you have a grasp of positional play I don't think you
will ever lose it. This is my opinion.
But unless you keep you tactcial powder dry - keep solving,
keep thinking etc etc that it fades.
general explanations may help but it does only come with 'feel' and
experience. I pick up bits now and then, I can remeber playing my
first positional combination.
I looked at his Bishop, I played a wee trade combination that left
a pawn on the same colour square as his Bishop in the middle of
the board.
It was played soley to give him a bad Bishop. Nothing else.
What annoyed me was how easy the win was after that.
For years (a decade) I had been busting my head saccing for
complications when all the time......chess is an easy game.
Funnily enough, I learned a lot about positional play from
Marshall's Best games. Not done a word count but I think the word
positional appears a lot more than the word tactical.
Maybe wrong - but I did get some positional ideas from that book.
A good thread this.
24 Apr 09
Originally posted by diskamylOK we are onto creative ideas.
not sure what you mean by "creative ideas", but I'll put it this way:
very few people on earth actually analyze games played by two engines. (I'm not into it, but few people are.)
if you're suggesting that engines are incapable of finding creative ideas, then it's downright wrong.
if you're suggesting that engines are incapable of helping people ...[text shortened]... posed to sharpen up with training after a rusty week and even play a game tonight.
I need an example of a human getting a creative idea from a box.
Re: Tactical training and game tonight.
1st lesson:
This should all have been done BEFORE the day of a game.
Do not play any chess or look at anything chess on the day of a game.
Go to the board hungry. Do not waste your daily creative juices.
Now that is what I do. It works for me.
The important thing is I believe it works for me.
2nd Lesson:
When you play a good game and you are happy with performance
remember what you did that day and make that your pre - game ritual.
3rd Lesson:
99% of all non mating combinations involve an unprotected pieces.
When it's his move look at the board at though for the first time.
Look at every unprotected piece and pawn. (Including your own).
Look at unprocted squares aound his King.
Can you plot against them - any ideas?
4th lesson:
If he sacs against you - your first thought should be what happens if
you don't take it. Not what happens if you do.
A lot of unsound sacs are actually very sound if taken.
It's always the first move that is wrong.
There you are 4 lessons - Good Luck.
24 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34Your cheap and infamous attack on Anand was speculations like "I wonder how much they paid Anand for his interview" or "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." Such things are called Ad Hominem fallacy.
Hi Cimon - So I've woken you up as well.
[b]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 en you have won an argument when the
other side starts hurling insults at you. 🙂[/b]
Each reader of this thread may compare his words about Karpov and your texts about Anand.
About your "facts" - it seems to be wishful thinking of old-fashioned conservators. Don`t know current top GM who would claim such a nonsense.
Arguments about things which "has a proven track record" have been used almost against any improvement. History showed failure of these conservators.
And it was you who started insults against Anand.
24 Apr 09
Originally posted by CimonWhat the hell are you on???
...Your cheap and infamous attack on Anand was speculations like "I wonder how much they paid Anand for his interview...
Anand's dull as dishwater - even his mum knows this to be true.
Morozevich is the only player in the top 10 who I'd pay to watch.
24 Apr 09
Originally posted by CimonHi Cimon.
Your cheap and infamous attack on Anand was speculations like "I wonder how much they paid Anand for his interview" or "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." Such things are called Ad Hominem fallacy.
Each reader of this thread may compare his words a ...[text shortened]... owed failure of these conservators.
And it was you who started insults against Anand.
I got a PM'd a link.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4933
I read it.
My slur on Annad was wrong. No excuse.
After reading this I now believe his quote was genuine.
I was particularily taken with this quote.
"In the past years there have been spectacular games that would not
have been possible without computers. The possibility of playing
certain moves would never have occurred to us. It is similar to
astrophysics: their work may not be as romantic as in previous times,
but they would never have progressed so far with paper and pencil."
and infact the whole interview is worth reading.
he also says:
"The computer is an excellent training partner. It helps me to improve
my game."
He does not say playing the thing helps you any - so Anand is on my side! 😉
This was placed in DATABASE but taken from a German newspaper
so Anand had no reason to praise computers. I was wrong.
Sorry Cimon, you are correct in pulling me up - it was a low shot.
(still going to put his book on ebay though.)
25 Apr 09
4 edits
Originally posted by greenpawn34How can a player learn from a box? It has no emotion. Perhaps we
Hi Diskmayl
read you 2nd post.
You are making valid points there.
Strong players use engines to analyse their games. OK.
Still need a creative idea that has won a game.
I still refer to original post.
Can it help me - YES
Will it do damage to my play? - yes (note lower case = there is a
possibility it can)
One of the first things e original question.
I've cited all my reasons and have not been convinced to the contary.
can begin to understand a position, but we must understand it through
our own discovery and observation. The box may post road signs, but
the journey is still through our mind. My personal belief is that
an engine can be used as a tool for discovery, but not as a teacher.
Strong chess, as it seems to me, typically is a war of understanding
less of the variations, and more of our own personal predilictions. Our
emotions control our ability to be creative consciously, and
unconsciously. Trying to defy this in a way to play mechanically, can
only hurt our natural abilities to be illustrious or creative across a
chess board. I personally cannot imagine trying to create
without my own natural inspiration: emotion.
Perhaps a man who cannot feel, can lean on an engine for the
justification of his mechanical play.
-GIN
25 Apr 09
Originally posted by NowakowskiHi
How can a player learn from a box? It has no emotion. Perhaps we
can begin to understand a position, but we must understand it through
our own discovery and observation. The box may post road signs, but
the journey is still through [b]our mind. My personal belief is that
an engine can be used as a tool for discovery, but not as a teacher.
St ...[text shortened]... n who cannot feel, can lean on an engine for the
justification of his mechanical play.
-GIN[/b]
I can see how a box can stimulate the creative juices.
I've been thinking on and off about games I play against
that GNU program that has the no draw flaw in it.
I was fairly creative when I looked at endings via a box
What about this?
What about that?
OK let's stick the pawn g4 instead of g3 now what?
Is it the same with King on f6?
It's a tool and when I get Rybka 3
(someone is sending Rybka 3 as a result of this thread).
I'm going to look at standard openings note the valuation and;
Remove a piece here and there.
In a standard Lopez remove White's Lopez Bishop and of course
a Black piece.
Here, look at this position.
Remove the b3 + c8 Bishops what's happening?
Remove the b3 Bishop & the c6 Knight now what?
put the b3 bishop on f1. Any major jump - any tricks on?
Take off all the pieces - what do think of that pawn formation?
Perhaps nothing will happen but who knows.
I just might stumble upon an idea.
"Well look at that - In a book position from the Falkbeer Gambit.
if I remove my c8 Bishop the box has found me a mate in 5 -
the a8 Rook can hits the e-file one tempo sooner."
So let's back track and look at Bc8-h3.
(although there is a mate in the position the box will not 'show' this
whilst the Bishop is till on c8. And it might not suggest Bc8-h3
because taking the Bishop would allow a mate in 5.)
But If I give the thing a nudge - bingo. A TN. A.TRAP!
ideas, ideas, ideas.
But the human is being the creative one - the box is my easel.
The roles can never be reveresed.
Looking forward to putting a good machine through it's paces
As Disamly says what the point of having one if you are not going
to use it. I'll have it smoking.
(Won't play it though - that damages your chess.) 😉
ps:
Disamly will be sitting there with his head in hands.
"OH No. He's going to use Rybka 3 to create opening traps." 🙄
25 Apr 09
Originally posted by greenpawn34well it was an embarrassingly awful game on my part. I'm totally blacked out recently. I don't know why, and I can't get over it. I'm not playing like a 1200, I'm rather playing like a 1800 with a mental illness.
Well diskamy,
How dod you get on last night?
Your opponent asked me to keep you busy postiing instead of preparing.
The things I do for the promise of a pint and a packet of crisps.
24.Qc4+? what the **** ? 28.Nd7 was another 1 mover blunder. not to mention the superb defense in a lost ending. seriously. maybe real time chess isn't my thing. I can't find an explanation besides not having the right mental abilities for real time games. because while I study complicated tactical positions, believe it or not, I'm absolutely much, much better than this. and with the current flow, I don't know how I can climb back up to 1850 when I fall down to 1700s. I need to work on having a clear head, and try to discipline my mental state during games.
thank you for the lessons by the way, I wish I could've used them.