Originally posted by ChessJesterI think our disagreement isn't all that large. I never meant to imply that one should ALWAYS use an engine for analysis. Of course, there's much to be gained by using brain power to conduct Stoyko exercises or try to analyze master games. Using the old gray matter for these purposes helps greatly in your learning.
Sure, using an engine will allow you to easily see what mistake you made in a certain line, but will it allow you to see those mistakes before they happen in a completley different position when you have no access to a chess engine?
You need to be able to analyze the position at any point, using your head, because you can't use computers during chess ...[text shortened]... need to have the power to analyze things yourself and the sooner you can do that, the better.
Also, if you have the time, it might even be a good idea to manually analyze a game you just played. You might even spot some errors during this manual analysis that you didn't see during the game. But even if I did manual analysis, I'd still run it through an engine to pick up anything that I missed during the manual analysis. My guess is that if you make a blunder in a game, there's a good chance that you won't spot the blunder on the second or even third look at the game.
As far as your comment about not being able to use computers during chess games, that's why, once you've used your engine to identify the tactical blunders in a game, you then go back to your tactical exercises on a regular basis to try to plant more of these patterns in your mind's long-term memory. Just identifying the blunders isn't enough - You have to learn the tactical patterns.
Well you have a point... to an extent. I've read alot about tactics and I understand them so Its easier for me to spot tactical errors... plus, tactics are very obvious. There is also a systematic way in which you can analyze your games that will be very benificial. First you have to find out why you lost. Was it positional or tactical? If it was a tactical mistake, then a computer can point that out right away, in order to do that yourself you need to study tactics, you can't just do it right off the bat. Yet, if it was a positional mistake a computer cannot easily identify it. Positional moves seem to baffle computers sometimes, and computers will often even make large positional blunders in the wake of short-term, pawn-grabbing tactics. This is why if you rely on computers to analyze your games then you will start playing like a computer and any player with an aptitude for positional play will surely have an edge over you.
In order to be a well rounded chess player you have to be able to see the positional side of things and a computer is not the right way to go about understanding this... I think this is probably why Dies Irae referred to them as a crutch.
Originally posted by BoogemStalemate is a draw.
[fen]8/8/1k6/4p3/p2q4/K7/3r4/8 w - - 0 63[/fen]
I just got this opponent in checkmate and the result was a draw. I don't understand. I feel robbed. Please could someone explain what happened.
If you opponent is not in check and cannot make any legal moves that is called stalemate.
Originally posted by ChessJesterAgree, engines usually stink at strategy (and positional aspects). I actually was going to mention this in one of my previous posts but then deleted the comment because I assumed it was common knowledge. (I guess I should have left the comment in.) You'll notice in my posts that I never mention strategy, only tactics.
Well you have a point... to an extent. I've read alot about tactics and I understand them so Its easier for me to spot tactical errors... plus, tactics are very obvious. There is also a systematic way in which you can analyze your games that will be very benificial. First you have to find out why you lost. Was it positional or tactical? If it was a tacti ...[text shortened]... out understanding this... I think this is probably why Dies Irae referred to them as a crutch.
But I do disagree with your comment that tactics are obvious. Depending on your rating, certain basic tactics are easy to spot, but deeper tactics aren't. And you'll always overlook some tactics - You can't see 100 percent of them.
And only Dies Irae knows for sure what he was thinking. But he never mentioned positional aspects. Also, he said that using an engine will be more sophisticated analysis than you need, which I infer to mean that he wasn't thinking of positional considerations.