26 Sep 06
In another thread Xanthos asserts, "Playing against an engine teachs nothing except that engines are quiet good at playing their brand of chess."
I was quite surprised to read that. I would think playing against an engine would assuredly improve one's game. Wuddya think?
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by bassoOf course it would improve your game. XNZ is full of [doodoo] if he denies that.
In another thread Xanthos asserts, "Playing against an engine teachs nothing except that engines are quiet good at playing their brand of chess."
I was quite surprised to read that. I would think playing against an engine would assuredly improve one's game. Wuddya think?
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by bassoThe reason I don't play engines is purely psychological - I don't like knowing the result of a game before I start.
In another thread Xanthos asserts, "Playing against an engine teachs nothing except that engines are quiet good at playing their brand of chess."
I was quite surprised to read that. I would think playing against an engine would assuredly improve one's game. Wuddya think?
26 Sep 06
i'm with you on that. maybe the excitement of playing an enguine is gone because they will play a perfect opening no matter what and get teh edge on you. also they never play out of line they just keep playing book moves. i like playing humans because they make much more mistakes than humans. humans might make a tactical mistake but a 1800 computer will never make one as well as i'm concerned.
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by dottewellIf you knew in advance you were going to win then would you feel the same way.
The reason I don't play engines is purely psychological - I don't like knowing the result of a game before I start.
Engines aren't unbeatable, even if you aren't a grandmaster. I'm interested in engine technology and the various algorithms used have some weaknesses. For example some engines use something called 'Null Move Pruning' which amounts to if I do nothing and my opponent moves then is the position still good for me? If so I don't need to do a search on this move. This fails in cases of zugzwang. Quiescent searches (resolving of potential captures at the end of a normal search) are potentially vulnerable to zwischenzug. See http://www.seanet.com/~brucemo/topics/nullmove.htm for a discussion of this (scroll down past the technical stuff to where the chess boards are).
A more obvious way of beating them is to sacrifice a pawn, or even more, for the kind of long term strategic advantage that their evaluation functions don't pick up on, provided the eventual material pay off is over their likely search depth (the Benko gambit is an obvious example, but they are helped out there by their openings databases) - so you have to be looking at something that pays off around 15-20 moves ahead.
There are players who are specialists in beating engines and obviously they are good players, but use their knowledge of the machines weaknesses to win. These methods are going to be less effective against humans who think about the position in a totally different way to the way machines do.
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by bassoIt's much better to run your games through an engine and analyze them then to play an engine. Engines don't play anything like humans; in particular, they NEVER make tactical mistakes and ALWAYS play perfect openings and endgames. But most OTB games are decided by tactical mistakes and oversights. Setting traps is an extremely useful strategy against humans, but it's utterly worthless against engines. If you play engines a lot, you might discount this strategy.
I wonder why not. On those rare occasions I feel up to be creamed by an engine, they very quickly point out the weaknesses of my moves. Surely this will help in improving one's game (against humans, engines, what have you).
I only play engines against my wishes and can pretty much tell now when I'm playing one. The most important use for an engine is analyzing your games to show where you made tactical mistakes or missed opportunities. But even then it's of limited utility.
26 Sep 06
Engines can help you if you use them properly.
If you want to practise an opening to death, play it against the engine. It will never complain about the opening and will always expect either color.
Analyse a game.
Lots of engines have exercises, endgames, opening etc...
It's fun playing an engine when you don't know you are playing against an engine. Not Rhp or anything like that.
Just a friendly game with your friend and he uses an engine set at a reasonable level without telling you. Because I know that if i'm playing against an engine I play badly, physcoligical reasons (mind the spelling) but if I don't know i'm playing against an engine then I play better because I think it's human vs human.
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesEngines do not play like humans. Good play against an engine is not the same as good play against humans. My natural game gets stomped all over by engines and if I wanted to play well against them I would need to modify my gameplan significantly.
Of course it would improve your game. XNZ is full of [doodoo] if he denies that.
Now perhaps I shouldn't have said it does nothing because clearly any chess is better than no chess but playing against humans is much much better than playing against an engine.
Engines are best used as analysis agents.
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderWhile i agree in principle, engines do NOT play chess like humans do, i have to disagree in one respect. Engines don't give up!! I don't play against my engine very often, but i do occasionally use it for analysis and I have learned an important lesson. Belligerence!! I analysed a club game i played about a year ago where i resigned after about 37 moves. Out of curiosity i set fritz up to play against itself from the final position and the game went to 108 moves (my side was still losing, but it was FAR from won when i resigned). Now, it is unlikely i would have managed to make this many moves had i played on, but i realised that there had been a number of tactical resources available which could have caused my opponent great difficulty. It is it's complete absence of emotion which makes it a good teacher. Not long after that game i faced a much stronger opponent and, after suffering the early loss of a knight, and later a couple of pawns, i opted for a line which produced an incredibly complicated tactical position and ended up winning his Queen (the game ended a draw, but i didn't lose, which was a victory in itself). It was Fritz that had made me play on. You should take your chess lessons in whatever shape the come in without prejudice...
Playing against engines isn't much use to prepare for playing against humans.
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by MarinkatombI don't need a chess engine to teach me not to resign until the game is hopeless; I had a very good human chess teacher tell me that 40 years ago. Actually a chess engine won't tell you tactical moves in a losing situation if perfect defense succeeds against them; it will go with a - 2.00 which leads to a sure loss rather than a trap which if properly defended against is a - 2.25 but if your opponent falls into it might give you a draw or even a win. This is yet another reason it is a poor substitute for a game with a human.
While i agree in principle, engines do NOT play chess like humans do, i have to disagree in one respect. Engines don't give up!! I don't play against my engine very often, but i do occasionally use it for analysis and I have learned an important lesson. Belligerence!! I analysed a club game i played about a year ago where i resigned after about 37 moves. ...[text shortened]... ay on. You should take your chess lessons in whatever shape the come in without prejudice...
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by RahimKI agree that they can be useful for learning openings.
Engines can help you if you use them properly.
If you want to practise an opening to death, play it against the engine. It will never complain about the opening and will always expect either color.
Nevertheless, it must be noted that Fritz always complains about black, and taunts that he is unbeatable when he has white.
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are right, it is a poor substitute for a human opponent, but the point i was making is that it plays good chess! You can learn a lot from seeing good chess, whether it's a human or not. I am most impressed with the way engines calculate move order. I often see the possibility of some tactical theme, but the engine almost always improves on it by getting the order right. I've never been lucky enough to have a teacher, i take my lessons where i can get them...
I don't need a chess engine to teach me not to resign until the game is hopeless; I had a very good human chess teacher tell me that 40 years ago. Actually a chess engine won't tell you tactical moves in a losing situation if perfect defense succeeds against them; it will go with a - 2.00 which leads to a sure loss rather than a trap which if properly de ...[text shortened]... raw or even a win. This is yet another reason it is a poor substitute for a game with a human.
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by WulebgrEasy remedy, turn chatter off.
I agree that they can be useful for learning openings.
Nevertheless, it must be noted that Fritz always complains about black, and taunts that he is unbeatable when he has white.
I had chatter on a few times at the very beginning and I thought the comments very pretty funny. I did not read the black complaining one though. What is it like?
Black again!!
??