Thank you for your comment, greenpawn34. It's good to see someone disagreeing with other posters and not being rude.
On another thread Thread 141040 the OP is looking at this position.
Which came from the Blackburne Shilling Trap.
And wondering why SickFish gives this a 0.76+ for White.
Actually, for black.
So if the OP starts putting in his games into a box looking for tactics,
(the only thing he will understand) then there he will not be shown all the
trick and traps that lay underneath (the tricks and traps that we fall for).
He will not be saying to himself;
"That's a good idea, or I'll have to watch out for that one, or I'll try that,
it looks interesting." because he will not be shown it.
That is just not true. I am not a complete idiot unable to understand anything by myself. If I see that a computer makes a move I didn't even consider, I'll start thinking about it. There are two possible outcomes: it's simple enough for me to understand and I finally get to understand it, or it's not, and then I don't. Saying that one of these outcomes is impossible is just incorrect. I know I've learned something from engine analysis. The question how much is very interesting and I'd like to know that, but you seem to mean that I couldn't have learned anything. I may have misunderstood you and I'm sorry if I have.
I understand I have to get endgame technique, strategic understanding and tactical skills to become a decent player and that I should study to do that. I do this occasionally but I don't have time or patience to start doing it often. Perhaps I will in the future, but now, this is not what I want to do. I'm starting to like it here, because it turns out that given enough time I can actually win a game, so maybe this is going to change soon.
Originally posted by greenpawn34There is nothing wrong with 1...Ne4. It's a good move, you could argue it is the best move because White made one more move then resigned
GP, if a stronger human player had pointed out the Ng4 followed by Ne3, would you really say "sorry, let's cut out the useless information?" Of course not. Maybe in a future game I'll find a position where this idea is the only one that works. It's a good idea to be aware of, isn't it?
Show me a note from Alekhine or Tartakower that says: "And White is 0.76 better and I'll shut up
I'll show you plenty of notes from GMs that I don't understand. They often say things like "and White is winning". Do I always fully appreciate why? No. Does that mean it's a waste of my time looking over their notes? No. I take what I do understand. And you know what, I've sometimes learned some of the most instructive things from moves that they haven't commented at all! Yes, just me taking the moves and thinking for myself as to why it is good and this can sometimes be good practice in itself.
Sure, computers don't explain their moves with verbal comments. But unlike a GM's notes from a book, I can ask "and what if I do this or this or this" and the computer will show me *all* of its intended replies. Then I can start to use my own brain and figure out the logic behind it. If I think it's getting too complex, I drop it and move on - no big deal.
if you want your 0.76+ you will have to play like a top computer for maybe 10 - 16 moves
This is simply wrong. Look at my example: Ng4 followed by Ne3. How many moves? Again, you focus on the computer examples that we cannot learn from and then suggest that all chess positions are like this. It's not the case. A super computer calculating for 10 years per move will still often make use of relatively simple tactics because it's part of chess regardless of how strong the player is. So we take the analysis that we understand and forget the rest.
Hi WK.
I'm afraid being blunt is the only wayI know, though I never try to be rude.
I'm not calling you an idiot or anything like that, I'm on your side.
this bit.
"If I see that a computer makes a move I didn't even consider...."
We learn more from our losses and mistakes thn anything else.
A game of chess between humans without any mistakes is ridiculous
it just does not happen.
"If I see that a computer makes a move...."
It will not show you a mistake, it will not show you a human trick/trap.
The RHP 1400 DB has over 1 million games with players falling for cheapo's
that a box will never even consider.
It knows nothing about you, it will not help you develop as a chess player.
Infact as V states it could do more harm than good (or something like that,
sorry if it is a mis-quote.).
It could turn you into one of the Stepford Chess Players.
What ever you think a box has taught you it has only scratched the surface.
Not even that. Play and play and play.
Build up your board craft, soon it all starts to drop into place.
Post on here if you are stuck, there are dozens of good players offering
good advice. Good human practical advice.
Originally posted by nimzo5Get down from your high donkey. So did Anand get rid of his seconds then?
Kopatov- I hardly think you are in a position of truth on this issue. Your arguments are anecdotal at best - can a weak player learn from a chess engine, of course they can. Is it the best way to improve, absolutely not.
Magnus hired Kaspy, sure, but in the Anand- Topalov champ. Anand got help from the Hiarcs team and Topalov hired Rybka...
please get down from your high horse.
I'm sure you have heard of the Russian chess school, no doubt you want to tell me that people turn up with their laptops and stockfish!!!!!
I wonder what they do at the Anatoly Karpov school of chess http://www.anatolykarpovchessschool.org/home/karpovinterview.html
@Varenka, park your engine with its 0.76 analysis and start reading some quality chess books. Practice some tactics and play versus humans. If you have done that, then go to where you had parked your engine and then ask it for its 0.76 but you will have some feeling of the positions.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Hi GP,
This debate again. 😴
Can weaker players benefit from a strong computer.
First a quick look at the postion V posted.
[pgn]
[FEN "1R6/5ppk/4pn2/3p3p/1P6/8/1rr2PPP/1N3RK1 b - - 0 1"]
{Here Black to play. There is nothing wrong with 1...Ne4. It's a good move, you could argue it is the best move because White made one more move then resigned. 2.Na3 ...[text shortened]... Formula One drivers
of the chessworld, we are still on our push bikes.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think you are taking into account the ability to manipulate moves and go back and forth within a game.
First, it is obvious that it will not give a crystal clear answer to every conceivable chess question. However, there are plenty of times when it will give a very clear answer.
For every evaluation of the Blackburne-Shilling Gambit mystery, there are also situations like "If I play Bxh7+ here, I think I have a winning attack, and black has no defense. Am I right?" There will be plenty of cases where the player did NOT play the best move, and the computer very clearly shows what was missed.
Most of the time, and especially for 1200 players, the computer will show that hanging pieces were missed, or simple two-movers that lead to material gain.
In addition, chess engines don't just give an evaluation, they also provide strings of moves, just like lines in a book, so you can see what it is thinking.
The best part is that a new player can simply ask "I wonder what would happen if I had played this?", and then play it, and see the answer, back up the position, and try something else.
Occasionally we will see a bizarre line, like something Tal or Basman would play, but the vast majority of time the lines are the same chess we are used to seeing- the player learns that "Oh, I didn't see that it drops a piece" or "Oh, that leads to a pin" or a fork or whatever.
I do agree with you about the "0.76" evaluation part, but for completely different reasons. In my opinion, the number is no better or worse than having a human write "with compensation" or "with a small plus" or "with the advantage".
(It reminds me, as an aside, of the original Wade and Keene Batsford hardback on the King's Indian Defense that came out in the 1970's, where they had the same position occur on 4 pages in a row from different move orders, and it had a different evaluation on each page...)
The number does at least give us a basis for comparison for the computer as we use it over time. When it provides different numbers in various positions, it gives us a frame of reference that starts to fall into the human "slight plus/clearly better/etc" metric that we use as shorthand to express an opinion about a position.
Nimzo5 hit it right on the head. There are a variety of ways to improve at chess, using a computer is one of them, and it is not the best nor is it the sole answer.
Nevertheless,I can say at least that the Denker tournament of High School Champions just wrapped up here at the US Open, and the vast majority of the kids are more proficient on their laptops than I am on mine. Times are changing.
Originally posted by WanderingKingNow that we have learned that Stockfish gives the 0.76 evaluation to Black, it is simple to explain. Black is up a pawn, but white has some apparent compensation, which is why the evaluation is 0.76 and not 1.00.
Thank you for your comment, greenpawn34. It's good to see someone disagreeing with other posters and not being rude.
[b]On another thread Thread 141040 the OP is looking at this position.
Which came from the Blackburne Shilling Trap.
[fen]r1bqkb1r/pppp2pp/4pn2/8/2B5/2P3P1/PP3P1P/RNBQR1K1 w kq - 0 7[/fen]
And wondering why S ...[text shortened]... n enough time I can actually win a game, so maybe this is going to change soon.
In my opinion, that is easy to understand for anyone, even if they knew little more about chess than how the pieces move and the relative value numbers given in the instructions that came with the set at the drugstore. It''s also useful.
Where it is less useful is that a human teacher will be far better at explaining how to take advantage of the compensation as white, or how to nullify it as black.
Bottom line- it's a good place to start, but the journey is just beginning.
Originally posted by kopatovKopatov-
Get down from your high donkey. So did Anand get rid of his seconds then?
I'm sure you have heard of the Russian chess school, no doubt you want to tell me that people turn up with their laptops and stockfish!!!!!
I wonder what they do at the Anatoly Karpov school of chess http://www.anatolykarpovchessschool.org/home/karpovinterview.html
Both Anand and Topalov used computer teams as seconds along with traditional help. This sort of thing dates back to Kasparov who used computer analysis as a major weapon in the 90's to have a massive informational advantage. Nigel Short hired Lubomir Kavalek as his second in their match largely for his computer...
The Russian Chess school is long dead Kopa- the new generation of players have integrated chess engines and databases as a seemless part of preparation.
Players like Svidler, Shirov etc have all stated that they don't trust their own analysis without checking an engine- this is a far cry from the state of things ten years ago. A sad thing, but a fact.
Btw I know Dr Korenman who ran the Karpov chess school- last time I checked it was essentially defunct and Korenmen was running a small club on the southside of Chicago.
GP- I agree with you largely, at the club level - hard work and playing regularly trump reams of engine analysis that doesn't develop any skill.
Too many aspiring players turn on their engine the second the game is over instead of doing the hard work of analyzing for themselves.
Chess is a game of skill not knowledge at the non professional level.
I read an article on the web recently that says that computer analysis is an important part of training routine for children. The article is here: http://www.convekta.com/softscho/l1/lesson_3.html
Those kids are much stronger players than I am, so it does not necessarily apply to me. But this seems to be the proof kopatov wanted. His assertions are a bit vague so I can't be sure, but he seems to reject the idea of computer analysis in under-grandmaster training altogether.
Anyway, my thanks to all of the posters. I appreciate the advice.
Originally posted by WanderingKingWhile I like convetka and used ct-art religiously back in the day, I am suspect of a training system solely using computers.
I read an article on the web recently that says that computer analysis is an important part of training routine for children. The article is here: http://www.convekta.com/softscho/l1/lesson_3.html
Those kids are much stronger players than I am, so it does not necessarily apply to me. But this seems to be the proof kopatov wanted. His assertions are ...[text shortened]... aster training altogether.
Anyway, my thanks to all of the posters. I appreciate the advice.
Originally posted by nimzo5Mikhailova writes:
While I like convetka and used ct-art religiously back in the day, I am suspect of a training system solely using computers.
Implementation of computers in the learning process becomes most efficient when combined with traditional basic methods of training.
She claims the course is successful.
PS: I've found out that Grandmaster Artur Gabrielian is her pupil.
Originally posted by nimzo5Well,they speak of training using software,not engines.
While I like convetka and used ct-art religiously back in the day, I am suspect of a training system solely using computers.
This bit is important too "However, working with a computer is not as simple a task as it might first appear. Therefor the active role and responsibility of a trainer now includes implementing the new study course, since it is the trainer who plans and organizes all the stages of the training process."
And it's convekta,I'd be surprised if they said software is useless
Originally posted by WanderingKingDon't recall reading that,all I saw about the use of engines was playing against them.Where is that bit?
Engines too, since she writes about the computers perfoming tactical analyses.
But my point is that this training does not consist of just using engines to (help) analyse your games.
Originally posted by tortenThat is correct, and no one has claimed "just using engines" anywhere, although I think Kopatov may be laboring under that misconception. The word "just" should not be in the sentence.
Don't recall reading that,all I saw about the use of engines was playing against them.Where is that bit?
But my point is that this training does not consist of just using engines to (help) analyse your games.
We all agree that just using an engine to help analyze your games is not best, and no one has made a point saying otherwise.
If you thought that someone had claimed that, then that is the source of the confusion, perhaps.