08 Oct 07
The post that was quoted here has been removedI'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?
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by ih8sensWell I know for a fact that Fat Lady is rated around 2100 OTB.
... engines give me just as good if not better a game than non engines, right?
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.
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by Squelchbelchmost 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.
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.
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by ih8sensYes 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.
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.
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by Squelchbelch... 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 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.
08 Oct 07
The post that was quoted here has been removedHe 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.
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by ih8sensYes it is a fabulous counter-attacking opening.
... 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.
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.
09 Oct 07
5 edits
Originally posted by SquelchbelchThough 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.
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.
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.
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by ih8senswhat 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.
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.
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by diskamylI 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.
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.
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!