Originally posted by greenpawn34All the great players from Morphy to Tal never used a computer.
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, t ...[text shortened]... ay last ditch swindling attempts.
Humans do it all the time and win games with these methods.
Many of them also never used databases; played correspondence chess; watched chess DVDs; or read many of the instructive books available today. So, with your argument, will we ditch all of these too since Morphy didn't need them?
You then list things computers don't do. That doesn't mean that they don't do many things that are useful. e.g. my attention to "candidate moves" is more focused when using computer play, because they are very good at this and it encourages me to do likewise. I get punished more if I fail to consider a given move against the computer and that's good practice.
As a mathematical tool there is no longer any doubt a 'chess computer' is capable of speedier and more accurate calculation,and of finding for the most part acceptable continuation ideas in any given chessboard position,however pure creativity of idea fo the sake of creativity is beyond the abilities of any electronic or mechanical device at this time.As a consequence such micro-brains are best reserved for therir most useful task, which by most accounts would appear to be post game analysis. Although such devices have shown that previously unknown play concepts and lines of play exist,this does in no way indicate a superiority over the creative human brain.😴
If you think playing a box helps you, then so be it.
(that's another soul lost to the silicon devil).
But next time you fall for a two mover v a human because you have
never seen one before or your continual box play has lowered your guard.
Then remember this thread.
There is a new genre of chess player out there.
The good players call them 'computer players'
"...they have the biggest feet in the jungle." was a quote I saw.
By that they mean they step on every trap on the chessboard
simply because they are not use to avoiding them.
They also have a tendancy to roll over and die when things get rough.
Tread wary my friend - humans are not as good as computers
so they resort to low tricks, cheap traps, unclear sacs.
Do you think one of them is going sit still whilst you have a positional
plus and watch you slowly bit by bit increase your advantage.
No they will hack and attack, dodge and dive and swivel and swindle.
It's called Dynamic Chess - which is another thing a computer cannot do.
I'll let you keep your DVD's and books (those that are not littered
with box analysis) Most of the good ones quote Morphy - Tal games
as examples 😉
Originally posted by RECUVICSo computers aren't suitable opponents because they can't be "creative", but yet you think there's an abundance of creative genuises lining up to play games at standard times controls on sites such as ICC or playchess? Many human opponents I play are a lot more dogmatic than any computer.
As a mathematical tool there is no longer any doubt a 'chess computer' is capable of speedier and more accurate calculation,and of finding for the most part acceptable continuation ideas in any given chessboard position,however pure creativity of idea fo the sake of creativity is beyond the abilities of any electronic or mechanical device at this time.As a c ...[text shortened]... ines of play exist,this does in no way indicate a superiority over the creative human brain.😴
Try playing Rybka and you'll see many an unexpected idea being played.
Also, the question was whether playing a computer could give some improvement. It did not state that giving up play against humans was part of the approach. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Both methods can be used in a balanced training program.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Who mentioned giving up play against humans? Nobody. We can do both! 🙂
that's another soul lost to the silicon devil
your continual box play has lowered your guard
How can this lower my guard is the computer punishes it every time? Computer play can make you sharper because it doesn't need a second chance.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I've played for various chess clubs.... Glasgow Chess League.... weekend tournaments in Scotland.... SNCL (seen you there 🙂)... etc
Good. You can saved.
Are you a member of a chess club - which one?
I don't exclude human play from my practice by any means. 🙂
Originally posted by greenpawn34🙂
So why are you arguing with me?
I'm right 😉
I'm saying a sensible balance of both types of opponent.... you're excluding computers entirely.
Another point... play a long time control game online and you spend a significant part of the time waiting on the opponent's replies. Yes, you can still analyse, etc. but it is time consuming. Alternatively, a computer can give you a tough challenge at 1 sec per move so you spend more of your time considering your next move.
Originally posted by VarenkaI've heard before that the 3rd rank defense in KQKR is a result of computer analysis, but I've never been able to track down any reliable source for that. any ideas?
[b]what do you mean by new principles? KQKR has always been a basic ending
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.[/b]
because it seems just so obvious that people would've had issues with it for hundreds of years, basically since the first time anyone started thinking about KQKR seriously. and as the solution is so mechanical, I fail 2nd rank defense far more often. with 3rd rank it's sort of like KNB, you first aim for the 'starting position', then blitz all the rest.
I just mated rybka 2.2 against 3rd rank defense. haven't done KQKR in almost half a year I believe, and it still took less than 30 seconds. (the end from the key position I mean)
the hard part of course is getting to the 'starting position', as the lines up to it are quite random. just like with KNB.
Originally posted by FabianFnas"Never" is a dangerous word. Some chess programs allow options for weakening the program's play and/or introducing occasional blunders. But I agree with the consensus that it's better to play against humans (preferably a little stronger than you are).
Computer 'never' do tactial mistakes. Humans do.
So by playing a lot of games with computers you are unprepared for human tactical errors.
OK then. But when the power cuts start kicking in what are you going
to do then? Batteries?
I'm not excluding ALL comouters.
I play Grommit because I can beat it and it falls for tricks.
I also have one of the dedicated machines which is playable.
I'm excluding the good computers because............they cheat.
You can play quick time controls here 1 day no time bank.
Just had a thought.
There are some players here with awfully high grades who have beaten
and never been beaten by players who have been banned for using a box.
Maybe playing against a computer does help you improve after all?
Right. Hibs lost, Hearts won. So I'm off to Bells to kick someone's
butt at 5 minute chess.
(it's better than kicking the dog - it's a big dog).
"I've heard before that the 3rd rank defense in KQKR is a result of computer analysis, but I've never been able to track down any reliable source for that. any ideas?"
I know that I learned about this long before I had a computer, however, I've just checked my copy of Batsford Chess Endings and it says (this part was written by Bob Wade who died very recently)
"Until the advent of computer databases, this ending was thought to be fairly simple...If the rook defends very accurately, however, the win can be quite difficlut. In 1978, the American grandmaster Walter Browne took on a database. He failed to win the 1st time round and only won the replay on the fiftieth move."
Originally posted by greenpawn34He's playing against Chessmaster: it does leave pieces hanging, and makes egregious positional errors. Whether these are human-like errors is another matter.
Play Humans.
Infact if you play a box all the time you will stop spotting human errors.
Computers do not leave pieces hanging or allow the 2 move trick.
And of course you cannot ask a box questions or get it to buy
you a pint when you win.
As for the question:
Playing against computers can be beneficial, but you're better off with chess software designed by chess professionals. That description is no longer true of Chessmaster.
Playing against strong engines artificially weakened by personality tweaks, whether Chessmaster's Lasker or Fritz's Drunken Master is of less value than practicing theoretically won positions against the box at full strength.
I think this chap has the right idea:
http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2008/11/where-rubber-meets-road.html
Originally posted by greenpawn34sorry GP but again, you're just imposing your style, and with employing the concepts inaccurately too. Dynamic chess is something different than setting up traps and going for cheapos whenever you get "bored" of the position, and believe it or not, modern engines are best at it. you should try playing against Rybka some time.
If you think playing a box helps you, then so be it.
(that's another soul lost to the silicon devil).
But next time you fall for a two mover v a human because you have
never seen one before or your continual box play has lowered your guard.
Then remember this thread.
There is a new genre of chess player out there.
The good players call them 'co ered
with box analysis) Most of the good ones quote Morphy - Tal games
as examples 😉