Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member bannedplayer306509
    Best Loser
    08 Oct '07 21:07
    ... #1!

    Weyerstrass is starless... hope he isn't leaving!
  2. Standard member Dutch Defense
    Stealer of Souls
    08 Oct '07 21:14
    Originally posted by ih8sens
    ... #1!

    Weyerstrass is starless... hope he isn't leaving!
    Hey you subscribed! I thought you said you wouldn't.

    EDIT: I knew Weyerstrass would lose his star eventually.
  3. Standard member bannedplayer306509
    Best Loser
    08 Oct '07 21:20
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    I've only played one person who has now been banned for engine use. I have my questions about a number of middle rated players who I personally believe use an engine on just the occasional move, and not always (making it harder to catch). Frankly though, I don't really care... engines give me just as good if not better a game than non engines, right?
  4. 08 Oct '07 21:23
    Originally posted by Dutch Defense
    Hey you subscribed! I thought you said you wouldn't.
    He probably stole the star from Weyerstrass.
  5. Standard member Dutch Defense
    Stealer of Souls
    08 Oct '07 21:26
    Originally posted by Nordlys
    He probably stole the star from Weyerstrass.
    that explains it...
  6. 08 Oct '07 21:41
    Originally posted by ih8sens
    ... engines give me just as good if not better a game than non engines, right?
    Well I know for a fact that Fat Lady is rated around 2100 OTB.
    His rating here is just over 2100 as well.

    Thing is, on here you are much more likely to be playing an engine the higher your own rating (unless you wish to play much lower rateds for some odd reason) & since engines play an utterly different game to human players playing engines regularly is not useful to a serious OTB player.

    I have read various posts here where players have said something like analyse with an engine, but don't play against it for this reason.
  7. Standard member bannedplayer306509
    Best Loser
    08 Oct '07 21:44
    Originally posted by Squelchbelch
    Well I know for a fact that Fat Lady is rated around 2100 OTB.
    His rating here is just over 2100 as well.

    Thing is, on here you are much more likely to be playing an engine the higher your own rating (unless you wish to play much lower rateds for some odd reason) & since engines play an utterly different game to human players playing engines regular ...[text shortened]... e said something like analyse with an engine, but don't play against it for this reason.
    most modern grandmaster chess may as well be engine vs. engine... that's all the new masters are.. memory freaks.. they have people study stuff with engines and then memorize the lines. I have very little respect for modern masters.. Kasparov excluded.
  8. 08 Oct '07 21:52
    Originally posted by ih8sens
    most modern grandmaster chess may as well be engine vs. engine... that's all the new masters are.. memory freaks.. they have people study stuff with engines and then memorize the lines. I have very little respect for modern masters.. Kasparov excluded.
    Yes but get to 2000 on here & play a tactical opening like the Traxler & you will just get hammered all the time by engines without learning diddly-squat.
  9. Standard member bannedplayer306509
    Best Loser
    08 Oct '07 22:00
    Originally posted by Squelchbelch
    Yes but get to 2000 on here & play a tactical opening like the Traxler & you will just get hammered all the time by engines without learning diddly-squat.
    ... I'm almost convinced the Traxler is perfectly sound... I've been looking at it a lot recently. Even if white takes with the bishop (probably best), black gets a great game.
  10. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    08 Oct '07 22:07
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    He let me know a while ago.

    Its a pity as without him OTB Chess Players will struggle against the top clans but I can understand the frustration of putting in a lot of effort only to find you are playing an engine. Once you are looking at ratings above 2200 such experience has little practical benefits.
  11. 08 Oct '07 22:08
    Originally posted by ih8sens
    ... I'm almost convinced the Traxler is perfectly sound... I've been looking at it a lot recently. Even if white takes with the bishop (probably best), black gets a great game.
    Yes it is a fabulous counter-attacking opening.
    I'd have no hesitation to play it OTB because against most mortals without specialist knowledge I think 5.Nxf7 is much more likely. It is also far riskier for white.
    It's just a shame that the only way you can beat an engine is with a quiet positional game.
  12. 09 Oct '07 06:01 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by Squelchbelch
    Well I know for a fact that Fat Lady is rated around 2100 OTB.
    His rating here is just over 2100 as well.

    Thing is, on here you are much more likely to be playing an engine the higher your own rating (unless you wish to play much lower rateds for some odd reason) & since engines play an utterly different game to human players playing engines regular ...[text shortened]... e said something like analyse with an engine, but don't play against it for this reason.
    Though I agree that in this community where the prohibition of engine use is agreed upon, to use engines during play is completely unethical, I don't like all those statements about engines being "not playing human chess" etc.

    analyze top grandmasters' (those who have great tactical ability)moves with a modern engine, and you'll find out that the matching percentage is amazing. so, engines do play "human chess" in the sense that there's nothing like human chess, there's just chess.

    if I were a master, I wouldn't hesitate practicing against engines. even with my low rating where I don't even have chance against rybka with knight odds for example, I find it very useful to play against engines.

    the days where engines would just go seeking for material is over now. they are positionally too, monsters. There were countless positions where I -being a human- could not understand why the engine insists on not "taking that pawn." and I think this supports my point.

    people today have the chance to play against or analyze games with a combination of capablanca, karpov, kasparov etc, and I think the ones who dislike the "engine style" (which, mostly being 'materialistic' a decade ago, doesn't exist anymore) miss a huge opportunity.
  13. 09 Oct '07 06:15
    Originally posted by ih8sens
    most modern grandmaster chess may as well be engine vs. engine... that's all the new masters are.. memory freaks.. they have people study stuff with engines and then memorize the lines. I have very little respect for modern masters.. Kasparov excluded.
    what you're talking about is just opening preperation, and I completely agree with you about that, but you cannot generalize this to the point "grandmasters play engine-like games." I think, what really is going on is that as the years and decades pass, grandmasters become better and better in calculation ability, tactics, accuracy etc, and to me it's the wrong approach to interpret this as "they don't play with the soul", or "chess is losing it's artistry" etc. things are just getting on a higher level, that's all.
  14. 09 Oct '07 10:49
    Originally posted by diskamyl
    what you're talking about is just opening preperation, and I completely agree with you about that, but you cannot generalize this to the point "grandmasters play engine-like games." I think, what really is going on is that as the years and decades pass, grandmasters become better and better in calculation ability, tactics, accuracy etc, and to me it's the w ...[text shortened]... is losing it's artistry" etc. things are just getting on a higher level, that's all.
    I have to agree strongly with this point. When I started getting into chess a few years ago one of the first things I noticed was the chess communities complaints about top level chess with comments like "chess is Fritzed out" and I found this quite discouraging.

    At the highest level it's just a different game resulting from such high standards all round. Something similar happens in topflight football if our world cup is anything to go by....a lot of matches with few goals and important games decided with penalty shoot outs.

    Before chess computers were commonplace the Soviets strength in top flight chess surely had something to do with all the vast resources they put into the game. Now, through computers and the internet, huge resources are available to everyone and the game is evolving as a result.

    The fireworks, passion and the soul of the game - for those dissatisfied with top level chess - also has a good home further down the food chain - in schools, chess clubs and well... here!
  15. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    09 Oct '07 13:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by diskamyl
    ...analyze top grandmasters' (those who have great tactical ability)moves with a modern engine, and you'll find out that the matching percentage is amazing...
    no it isn't. generally the moves have to be quite forcing for a GM to match engines. well, it of course also depends on what you mean by 'amazing'. 60-70% is pretty usual, and I see nothing amazing in that.

    if you analyze GM games with engines, one thing becomes apparent very soon: engines understand very little about subleties in a position, and rely heavily on their infallibility in tactics. pit two engines against each other, and the games are often just ridiculous. two blind idiots fumbling in the dark. infallible in tactics, but idiots nonetheless.

    the engine evaluation will often claim the GM 'made a mistake', losing 0.5 pawns etc, but in a few moves the evaluation will 'miraculously' have bounced back. because the GM didn't make an error, but the engine did. in my experience, you see such engine mistakes in practically every GM game.

    engine evaluation is not The Truth, it's just a subjective opinion in a numerical form, based on some crude generalisations designed by a human programmer. take away the tactical infallibility, or provide the GM with even a weak engine for blunder checking, and the machines are toast.