Do computers really help our game?

Originally posted by bill718
Please don't misunderstand. I'm not anti computer. I have a new Dell notebook, and I really like it! A PC can be very helpful in storing information, and for communicating, but are we really stronger players because we have access to them? Would we be weaker players using card file boxes, 3 ring binders and post cards? I'm just not sure. Any thoughts?

Using three ring binders develops chess skill, but computers used properly help accelerate that development. However, the computer can become a substitute for work. Chess improvement is hard work with or without computers. When computers help focus that work, efficiency of learning improves. When computers become a reason to eschew work, improvement stagnates.


Has Dell improved?

Originally posted by exigentsky
What is perfect? Such discussions seem kind of silly given that we're all the same species. All nations have their pros and cons.

Wait, was this supposed to be about chess? 😀

what is chess? 😉

Originally posted by trev33
what is chess? 😉

Good question

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hi, how is it possible to do this with chessbase, as far as i am aware, you can get an 'opening report', but i never heard of an 'ending report', before.

You can create an endgame key from any database, and that is where I break everything down. I had chessbase for years before I discovered it by accident.

chess is a perfectly nice game

With computers you have more access to master games than the Soviets had for their top players.

Do computers really help our game?

Yes without a doubt computers have helped 'our game' tremendously.

Ask any writer pre - Chessbase, word processor and fritz.
Some great chess books would never had been written but for
the computers ability to make the task 100% easier.

(of course a lot of chaff has also been written but I would rather
have them about than no good books at all).

And the Net has opened up this game to the whole planet with
people playing each other from all over the world.
This is actually quite fantastic.

As to the question:

Do computers really help Your game?

The opinion I have gathered from speaking with GM's/IM's and
coaches and trainers is yes without a doubt. But all add a word
of caution that players can and do use this teaching tool badly.

My main gripe in this area is pattern storing and studying from
a screen instead of from a full sized board.

The feeling from the strong players and coaches is it is OK but
for any position that requires more than 10 minutes (Aagaard),
then you should take it to a board to get the full benefit.

These 'battleship postions - is what I call them' are the way to
improve. You can spend and hour just looking at one position
trying to 'find the truth'. I did a few in training session with some
other players last week. I am still thinking about one even now.

These cartoons players mouse flick through on various tactcial
websites are seen/sometimes solved and forgotten.

Wulebgr makes a good point.
The box makes chess training easier so some players put in less
work and skip things. Improving at chess is hard work.

Lifting a diagram from a site, looking at it for 2O seconds, giving up
and then getting your box to show you the answer is not really helping.

I'm sure some players actually miss out the 20 seconds bit and
go straight to their box for the answer thinking this is the way.

You should stay with it until you are positive YOU have the answer
and NEVER give up.

Some are obvioulsy doing something wrong.
If these things are so good at helping and improving players
why is not the whole planet simply flooded with IM's & GM's.

We(you) are now on Fritz 12, where is you IM title?

It all comes down to the indivual. You will get out of the game
as much as you put into it.

(Jacob Aagaard finds my notion that studying chess with a computer
can damage your chess totally hilarious but does agree player can
and have used this training tool badly.)

oops. Not entirely sure how to delete this extra post now. Sorry.

Interesting. I find my biggest problem OTB is getting into time trouble, so while looking at training positions I had been trying to not let myself look at a position for too long. OTB, if you haven't found 'the best' move after 5 - 10 minutes, you've usually got to move anyway .. so I try to train myself to do that by limiting the time I have to look at a position while studying.

From what you say above, maybe this is a mistake?

A minor thread hijack going on here but I will answer.

It sounds lie a mis-use of clock. Try to think on your opponents time.
Do not waste time on forced captures.

I've seen players looking at positions like this for 5 /10 minutes.
(obviously Black has just played Bxf3+)



They are trying figure out what is going to happen next .
This infuriates me.
You should play Qxf3 right away and then see what happens next,
this position is a forced move.

Some positions will demand more time and experience will tell you
when a position has to be 'worked on' and when not.
Have faith in your inert ability and do not analyse everything into dust.

Originally posted by Mahout
With computers you have more access to master games than the Soviets had for their top players.

and we are still not even near the skill of those players 🙂