24 Jan 09
Originally posted by EmLaskerIf you want stronger opposition I think that humans are way better option.
Can you improve by playing against computer? for example, I play several rounds of blitz chess games against computers(such as GM Lasker, Alekhine, Morphy etc) in CM Grandmaster, can you improve that way?
any comments and suggestions are appreciated.
24 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Fat LadyAlthough you would want to take advice from the more experienced players like Fat Lady and Greenpawn, in my humble opinion, you will certainly get stronger by playing against computers after a certain level, which is the level that you're tactically better than horrible, and can understand how it trashed you.
You'd be much better off playing against real people. If you want to play blitz, then why not log onto playchess.com (you'll need to install their client program) as a guest and play against other people?
but for this to be effective, you need to play against positional engines, like hiarcs, pro-deo or rybka. (pro deo is free and is known for it's human-like style.)
I don't see the point of playing lots of blitz though. you will get trashed before you know it. But playing rapid games (25+) is a different story. you miss one threat and you know you're done. I'm not referring to dropping pieces. If you still drop pieces very often, you'd be better off studying tactics and playing against people. But if you don't miss 2-3-4 mover cheapos, strong positional engines will crush you very beautifully and instructionally, and will introduce you the concepts of activity, initiative, grinding down, etc. that's my experience anyway.
of course, this suggestion is based on the presumption that you won't find 2200+ level players whenever you have time to play.
24 Jan 09
computers make unprincipled moves. because they can, due to sheer number crunching brute force power. a human can't learn from an unprincipled move, because it doesn't connect to anything we understand from before. it doesn't make sense to us in the big picture, so the best we can do is memorize it. but memorizing isn't sufficient for being able to apply the knowledge.
so mostly playing against computers is waste of time.
but, there are some limited areas of use, namely training theoretical endings against it, and maybe defensive tactical vision. doing the same against humans is probably even better though, as engines simply play differently. but who's gonna defend KNB a hundred times against you in a row?
24 Jan 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasI agree that it wouldn't be a good balance to play too many computer games and not enough against humans.
Computer 'never' do tactial mistakes. Humans do.
So by playing a lot of games with computers you are unprepared for human tactical errors.
But when you play against a computer you do have to consider human tactical errors.... your's! The computer will act as a strict penaliser of any tactical mistakes that you make, hence forcing you to raise your awareness of giving your opponent such opportunities. This would be particularly good training for those players who focus too much on their own ideas and don't pay sufficient attention to what the opponent can do.
As said, it needs to be balanced with other training.
24 Jan 09
Originally posted by wormwoodBut computers also make a lot of strong principled moves. And while some of their moves may remain beyond our comprehension, there are lots that we can analyse and learn from.
computers make unprincipled moves. because they can, due to sheer number crunching brute force power. a human can't learn from an unprincipled move
Yes, there are aspects of computers that make them very different from strong human players, but they are still strong players with play that can be instructive to watch or play against.
24 Jan 09
Originally posted by Varenkathey only make principled moves if they happen to be the result of a brute force calculation specific to a unique position. they don't generalize that result to other similar stuations, hence there's no principle behind that move. if a human 'sees' a principle there, it's just a projection with only coincidental ties to why computer actually chose that move. if you don't know that principle from elsewhere, you can't 'find' it from the computer move.
But computers also make a lot of strong principled moves. And while some of their moves may remain beyond our comprehension, there are lots that we can analyse and learn from.
Yes, there are aspects of computers that make them very different from strong human players, but they are still strong players with play that can be instructive to watch or play against.
same thing as why people are encouraged to study classical games instead of modern ones, only with computers it's even harder to 'find' the principles behind the moves.
24 Jan 09
Originally posted by wormwoodThat's not true.
if you don't know that principle from elsewhere, you can't 'find' it from the computer move
For example, we now understand KQ vs KR better due to observing computer play. So the computer highlighted principles that we didn't previously know. Likewise for understanding many openings better, etc.
When I watch computer play, I often see ideas I hadn't seen before. When people study chess, they're able and free to develop concepts on the basis of observing strong play alone.
I wasn't suggesting computer play as a main area of study. I just said it has some uses.
24 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Varenkawhat do you mean by new principles? KQKR has always been a basic ending, something you're assumed to know.
That's not true.
For example, we now understand KQ vs KR better due to observing computer play. So the computer highlighted principles that we didn't previously know. Likewise for understanding many openings better, etc.
When I watch computer play, I often see ideas I hadn't seen before. When people study chess, they're able and free to develop conc ...[text shortened]...
I wasn't suggesting computer play as a main area of study. I just said it has some uses.
(yeah, I know you like computer play, we've been down this road before, many times. and it's naturally okay if you feel you're getting something out of it. whatever works for you, right...)
24 Jan 09
Originally posted by wormwoodwhat do you mean by new principles? KQKR has always been a basic ending
what do you mean by new principles? KQKR has always been a basic ending, something you're assumed to know.
(yeah, I know you like computer play, we've been down this road before, many times. and it's naturally okay if you feel you're getting something out of it. whatever works for you, right...)
The "3rd rank defence" for KQvsKR was highlighted by computers. Similarly, new ways of playing the minority attack, for both sides, in the Queen's Gambit have been highlighted by computers. Our assessment of material imbalances is being affected too. etc. etc.
we've been down this road before
Agreed, old topics get revisited in forums.
24 Jan 09
All the great players from Morphy to Tal never used a computer.
Look at the brilliant masterpieces of chess these guys produced.
These things do not understand the concept of counter play.
They do not know which is a difficult position for a human to defend.
They never leave a piece hanging.
The never make speculative sacs.
The never set one, two,three, move traps. (unless by accident)
The never play last ditch swindling attempts.
Humans do it all the time and win games with these methods.
24 Jan 09
Originally posted by EmLaskerFind humans as the others have suggested. In spite of computers (being available for many many years), people still pay to join ICC, Playchess etc and compete OTB. A computer is just a tool but a human is more enjoyable.
Can you improve by playing against computer? for example, I play several rounds of blitz chess games against computers(such as GM Lasker, Alekhine, Morphy etc) in CM Grandmaster, can you improve that way?
any comments and suggestions are appreciated.