Originally posted by greenpawn34GP, please consider this. Many players don't "hang out" with strong players on a regular basis. And although games/questions can be posted online (such as in this forum), that just doesn't scale up for every player and every position they want to discuss.
I'd like to think I and the players I hang out with are not too bad and
our suggestions fit in with the position. We know what we are doing.
So take this as the scenario. Some player studying on their *own* and having already gave a position plenty of thought of their *own*. Ok, now what? They can either sit there and think "I didn't miss anything instructive in my analysis" or they can check it with an engine.
Compare a student learning maths. So they do some exercises and give them their best shot without any assistance. Now what? Ok, ideally a teacher will check them over and discuss in detail. But in reality there are sometimes too few teachers compared to the number of students. Therefore the next best thing is for the student to check his working against solutions at the back of the book. Sure, it won't always be explained as well as a teacher would, but at least the student would get some form of feedback.
If you're going to criticise engine analysis, please do it in the context of:
- advice from a strong human player is not available
- the student has already analysed sufficiently with their own brain
- the student is sensible enough to ignore engine analysis that is too complex for their own level
- the student doesn't just look at the engine's evaluations and moves, but makes an effort to figure out why
Originally posted by VarenkaGP- Varenka- PL -
GP, please consider this. Many players don't "hang out" with strong players on a regular basis. And although games/questions can be posted online (such as in this forum), that just doesn't scale up for every player and every position they want to discuss.
So take this as the scenario. Some player studying on their *own* and having already gave a positi ...[text shortened]... ust look at the engine's evaluations and moves, but makes an effort to figure out why
1) I think it is rare that a "Weak" player actually does thorough analysis on their own before turning on the box. I have looked at many annotations by the 1000-1500 crowd and they usually involve two things - notes on what they "wanted" to achieve and then fritz notes to show where material is lost. There is no discussion of real plans, or investigation of different alternative moves etc.
2) I do think at least stateside, many aspiring players have no club to attend and no strong players they don't have to pay to get regular advice.
This creates a real problem in how to develop as a player unless one real enjoys solitary study.
Originally posted by nimzo5I can believe this, but then the criticsim lies with the player's laziness.
I think it is rare that a "Weak" player actually does thorough analysis on their own before turning on the box.
As an analogy, sometimes players get criticised for studying openings too much. And this is probably true. But in "Improve Your Chess Results", Zak (once trainer for Spassky and Korchnoi) points out that one of the main reasons that opening study is slated so much is because players go about it the wrong way (learning rote moves without understanding, etc.). He argues that the players are more at fault than opening study as such.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Yes, here Nxf2 is good.
But what about my choice, the human move. h3 instead of Rc8.
Let's not miss the point. *During* the game, ideas of Nxf2 were in my mind. But I didn't once look at a line and consider the knight going to e3. The engine analysis highlighted an idea that may be useful in some future game even if in this game I could get by without it. Consider it adding to my range of ideas.
Hi V.
"advice from a strong human player is not available. "
A lot of good players cannot give good advice. Your job as with the computer
is to weed out the crap from the good stuff.
Today's advice is human players do not play like computers. (not yet anyway.)
"the student has already analysed sufficiently with their own brain."
Then there is no need to go any further. Have confidedence in your ability,
no need to build it up or tear it down with a box.
"the student is sensible enough to ignore engine analysis that is too
complex for their own level ."
But do they? Chances are they will head for that +0.76 position
not knowing why.
"the student doesn't just look at the engine's evaluations and moves,
but makes an effort to figure out why."
They should but it does not always happen. (see above).
You are not going to have the thing sitting beside you when you play.
You are on your own. Playing the game is the best way to improve.
The net is brilliant for this. I wish it was about when I was younger.
The borg keep throwing big names about, I'll throw one back.
Alekhine in his notes often says he tried a line a game to test it.
He found he was more creative when actually playing the game than
when studying it.
When electricity gets too expensive and the black outs happen I'm looking
forward to seeing all these guys improve 100% by reading and studying
by candlelight. Oh Happy Days.
Originally posted by greenpawn34"the student has already analysed sufficiently with their own brain."
Then there is no need to go any further. Have confidedence in your ability,
no need to build it up or tear it down with a box.
But the same could be said about consulting a stronger human player. I've played many a "good" game and then had a titled player show me how my opponent played badly. Was I looking for a confidence boost? No, I was looking to improve my chess understanding!
"the student is sensible enough to ignore engine analysis that is too complex for their own level ."
But do they? Chances are they will head for that +0.76 position not knowing why.
Well, that same student will blindly follow GM analysis too. You need to address the root cause here, and it's not the engine.
You are not going to have the thing sitting beside you when you play.
And you won't have a stronger player helping you either, but yet you advocate their post game help.
HI V
"Consider it adding to my range of ideas."
I don't think you mean you have never seen the Double Pig Mating Pattern before.
I don't believe that. I have over 80 mates on RHP with that position
(without even looking for for mirror mates for White).
Luring the f-pawn forward is a basic trick. Including in those 80 positions
are 1400 players pulling off the same idea.
SlickRick (from memory so I'll just give the bones.) produced this in a game.
He played 1...Ne3 2.fxe3 Rxg2+ etc.
I think you mean the idea never came to you and why should it. Ne4 wins easily.
As I said if Ne4 was not in the position you would have seen Ng4.
Switch off the box and study SlickRick's games. He will keep you right. 😉
Originally posted by greenpawn34And Ng8 wins too (yes, I mean knight to G 'eight'😉. 🙂
I think you mean the idea never came to you and why should it. Ne4 wins easily.
But the purpose of post game analysis is not just to find a win by any means, but to find other resources in the position.... to see more. It's a learning processs; I wasn't trying to figure out how to win the game (I did win it afterall).
Originally posted by Varenka99% of beginning chess players are very lazy and amazingly stubborn about it. that indeed IS the real problem, and not the almost insignificant detail of whether engines can be of limited use or not.
I can believe this, but then the criticsim lies with the player's laziness.
I know YOU'VE done your legwork to get where you are, greenpawn has done his, I have, erekose has, and in fact every single 'better' player who's posted here has. even z00t has. regardless of our stand on engine analysis. we all understand that about each other, and we all interpret the posted advice in that light. it's a given. we know a certain rating is more or less interchangable with the ability to work our ass off, regardless of the task. be it analyzing ith engines or any other Work. we're that 1 percent that wasn't lazy & stubborn about it, and thus we got better. (and WE know the really good players make our efforts look like childsplay, but that's another story.)
now the problem is, the beginner doesn't know that. from his perspective this whole discussion will most likely become just fuel for excuses to use the engine as a crutch. and for the 99% it WILL, you know it as well as I do. he'll rationalize it to himself by saying: "well there are good players doing it this way, so I can pull that off too, it's not like there's a law of nature prohibiting it". but what HE doesn't realize is just how MUCH work you put into your 'computer training'. and until he's done the couple of years of Hard Work, I really doubt he'll have any idea what we mean by that.
so never mind the 1%, they'll be fine by definition. the problem is, how do you get the 'lazy' 99% of beginners to actually do the work required?
and the answer is, you don't give them crutches. you don't provide them the easy way to choose from the hard way. you don't give the ideas beyond their level so they can procrastinate the hell out of it, thus avoiding the actual Work. you don't open the telly for a kid who's supposed to do his homework.
you give him the bare essentials, the things that can't be misused. take away the distractions, and things that can be misused out of ignorance or temptation. you give him the work he absolutely MUST get through, before you give the bells & whistles. you give him the old way. because it works.
Hi V.
Never mind all this nonsesne we have been over it before.
You are right from your side and I am stuck in my stubborn ways.
(with just an wee bitty bit of winding up.)
Have you seen what is happening on the ECF Forum.
CJ has been banned from presenting the prizes because he was
wearing a tee-shirt which supports Gay Rights.
http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3343
The forum are all arguing with each other.
Originally posted by wormwoodYes, you're right. If someone is lazy then there's a bigger issue to address. If they have to switch off the PC to combat being lazy then that is more important than engine analysis.
so never mind the 1%, they'll be fine by definition. the problem is, how do you get the 'lazy' 99% of beginners to actually do the work required?
Originally posted by greenpawn34The planet is teeming with the little buggers. Your toaster, your washing machine, your oven, they all have computers in them. A modern car has half a dozen of them!
Anyway you all know where I stand regarding computers.
If these things are so wonderful at teaching and making better chess players
of everyone then where are they all? The planet should be teeming with them.
The issue is not what a computer can teach (they are not allowed to teach in England as they are not qualified and not members of IFL) but what you can learn using them (not from them). Consider a chess book, how much can than that teach you? Nothing, it is inanimate. You have to put some effort in and use the thing effectively to learn something. The same applies to any learning resource, you have to put the work in for it to be effective. Even a real human teacher cannot teach if the student is not willing to engage and learn, I know this from experience.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Short and embarrassing? I dunno... 😉
A wee bit of self study (no quick fix in this game) but if you are not yet
acquainted with the Morphy games then I envy you.
It's like getting laid for the first time.
Thanks for the tips. I've been looking at some Games with Names recently and they've been pretty cool. The traps you've shown me look cool too. I'll try to analyze them as well as I can. The trouble is, I get some ugly feelings of guilt when I sit at the chessboard for too long instead of studying for my upcoming exams. Well, anyway, I hope I can manage somehow.
Exams???
Screw the exams, it's not what you know it's who you know.
I lived rent free in the oldest chess club in the world for 6 years.
I got the 'mansion' I have lived in for the past 30 years from a chess player
who was on a commitee looking for a suitable tenant.
It really is a nice house, it's huge and it's a housing assoc. I pay £180 a month.
I worked 10 years in a shop selling chess computers.
(the irony of how I feel about them now has not escaped me).
The current job I'm in now I got through knowing a chess player.
I worked in a bank got laid off when the cuts happened, never thought I'd
get another job at 60. Chess came through.
And anyway the planet is going to get hit with a big big rock in 2029 so
blow the future (it will be about 10 years before everyone knows this and
riots will starts, the whole planet will go hell.) So what's the point.
You might as well go out being a good chess player instead of being
the most qualified staff member in a McDonalds.
PS: Chess Traps are not cool. The Beatles and the Stones are cool.
Chess Traps are my (and now your) bread and butter. 😉
Originally posted by greenpawn34that said, you only know chess players! 😀
Exams???
Screw the exams, it's not what you know it's who you know.
I lived rent free in the oldest chess club in the world for 6 years.
I got the 'mansion' I have lived in for the past 30 years from a chess player
who was on a commitee looking for a suitable tenant.
It really is a nice house, it's huge and it's a housing assoc. I pay £180 a m ...[text shortened]... eatles and the Stones are cool.
Chess Traps are my (and now your) bread and butter. 😉