When I first joined this site I had the silly idea that it would be instructive to use a chess computer to analyze my losses and point out where I had gone wrong. In reality, my games aren't deep enough to warrant this and in my losses, its bloody obvious where I goofed. So, I use my computer to play blitz against; it kills me, but not as bad as when I first started.
Originally posted by KneverKnightNothing silly about using a chess engine to analyse your games.Analyse it yourself first,then run it through the comp to see what improvements it finds,if any,on your analyses.I think it's a good way to learn.
When I first joined this site I had the silly idea that it would be instructive to use a chess computer to analyze my losses and point out where I had gone wrong. In reality, my games aren't deep enough to warrant this and in my losses, its bloody obvious where I goofed. So, I use my computer to play blitz against; it kills me, but not as bad as when I first started.
Must agree with SirLose- definitely run the game through an engine _after_ it's over 🙂. Even if you think everything was obvious, you might be surprised at what the machine turns up. But playing blitz against it... shudder. That's just asking for humiliation (hint- look up IDFS search)... try a longer game.
I would add that it's far better to analyze on your own before running it through a tactics cruncher. If you do the computer analysis first it tends to influence your own perception of the game before you've made an independant judgment, and one of the things the engine can do for you is not only critique your play but also help critique your analysis.
At really low levels (like where I am, for instance) much of the engine analysis is too nuanced to be helpful. I use an engine for analysis, but pretty much only pay attention to improvements of over a full 100 centipawns. It's also really important that you not just blindly accept the computer analysis but play through it until you really understand why it's good.
My own process for game analysis when I have a game I really want to learn from:
1) Discuss game with opponent; write down their comments.
2) Try to capture in writing my own thought process from during the game.
(With a correspondence game, I generally reverse steps 1 and 2.)
3) Play through again, with the board "flipped", doing my own, unassisted, detailed analysis.
4) Check early positions against a database and record how higher-rated players handled similar games.
5) Now run the chess engine, mostly double-checking for blunders missed during previous steps, and adjust the annotations as needed.
6) Find one or more stronger players to look at the game, along with the notes (sometimes just with the notes from step 2), and adjust annotations to reflect the conversation.
7) Once more from the top: play through the whole game, reading the annotations as if written by someone else; this is often best done after a good break in time.
That's a pretty involved process, and of course I don't follow it for every game. But those games that were hard fought, that I lost, and that were not merely screaming blunderfests, get this treatment now, when I have time.
I'm curious: what do other people do?
Well, maybe I should look deeper at my losses, embarrassing as they are. I swear that the "move" button turns to "send blunder" a split second before I press it sometimes! Oops, there goes a pawn. All your comments are appreciated, what I'm hearing is that I need to be more methodical. In spite of this being an email chess site, I've found myself switching from game to game and hurriedly playing the first move that looks decent, I bet others fall into this trap too.
I'd agree with you about a lot of it, but:
You say:
"I would add that it's far better to analyze on your own before running it through a tactics cruncher."
Thoeretically, you did this when you made the move. I would _never_ look at an engine's output on an OTB gm,e before analyzing it myself, but... theoretically I analyzed my correspondence game before playing the move I made- I've never dropped a piece in a corr. game, for instance (I have made dumb moves that should have lost). I have made some hasty moves, and I try to have an opinion about each of my moves before looking at engine analysis. But the advice you give there is much more apropos for OTB play.
You also say: "At really low levels (like where I am, for instance) much of the engine analysis is too nuanced to be helpful."
I'm inclined to think that the strength of engine analysis is that it's unnuanced. Even at my sucky level, I am better at the opening than Fritz- cause of nuance? He still kills me- brute force. Nuance is what better players are for- you mention them later- don't think I ignore that 🙂.
But what engines are really good for is saying, look, you can't do that- you lose a pawn (or your queen...). They suck at nuance. Trust them for forcing lines- don't trust them for good moves- as you point out, that is why you should know some better players. I am lucky enough to play some really strong players sometimes.... GMs and such- they tell me things that Fritz can't- but Fritz gets things in a minute, that they would miss in a year- and I mean strong ones- I bettered a US GMs analysis of a game this year, by knowing my software better- had nothing to do with chess skill- just managed to use some programs to find a forcing line in a position he thought was unclear.
Other than that, your checklist looks really good- I bet if I followed it I'd get better 🙂. I'd like to add a step though... or at least elaborate on one. Most people never really learn to use their db. The big thing they fail to learn is how to search for _similar_ positions. Admittedly, most db programs are mediocre at this, but.. mediocre is better than nothing. To me this is the major strength of dbs....
"Well, maybe I should look deeper at my losses, embarrassing as they are. I swear that the "move" button turns to "send blunder" a split second before I press it sometimes! Oops, there goes a pawn. All your comments are appreciated, what I'm hearing is that I need to be more methodical. In spite of this being an email chess site, I've found myself switching from game to game and hurriedly playing the first move that looks decent, I bet others fall into this trap too."
Yeah, well join the club in terms of embarrasment. I have a couple of games here that don't exactly cover me in glory- the reason that I can say that is that I only have a couple of games here- they all embarass me- I suck at chess. Apparently you do too- like I said, join the club.
But playing corr. thoeretically (and I say that cause it mostly hasn't been that way for me- I still suck) allows you to analyze until you find good moves... So your embarrasment is entirely your own fault (as is mine...) 🙂. OTB is easier- make a mistake, go home, resolve to do better..... here you have to live with it for a while.
Here's my best game on the site... http://www.redhotpawn.com/core/playchess.php?gameid=457507
A lot of work went into that bish sac. Short game, though. Would have never played that over the board.
So don't worry if you play bad moves- "theoretically" you won't, cause it's corr. but even with a week or so per move, you're likely to snap a move or three off, with disastrous consequeces... don't worrry too much about it.
Originally posted by GMFI did say: "analyse it yourself first,then run it through an engine".
I would add that it's far better to analyze on your own before running it through a tactics cruncher. If you do the computer analysis first it tends to influence your own perception of the game before you've made an independant judgment, and one of the things the engine can do for you is not only critique your play but also help critique your analysis.
At r ...[text shortened]... nderfests, get this treatment now, when I have time.
I'm curious: what do other people do?
It goes without saying that you need to do it on your own first.
I agree with the rest of your post.Good method 🙂
Originally posted by GMFI created a new thread "ADVICE: how do you use databases?" in response to #4 in your list.
4) Check early positions against a database and record how higher-rated players handled similar games.
I only visited this thread because I noticed it had gotten longer, and thought it might discuss non-cheating uses of computers and -- voila! If you have advice for me please answer in the new thread.
Thanks
Originally posted by GatecrasherLol! Thats a good one Gatecrasher! 😵 is it your own or a quote?
When I was growing up, I worried about what people thought of me.
When I had grown up, I no longer cared what people thought of me.
Now I'm getting older, I realise that nobody was thinking about me at all.
Temptation has been there, of course, but I never gave into it. I don't want to see how the computer plays against other players. My Novag Saphire has proven that it can kick butt (Namely mine) But, anyway, I am more interested in seeing how I myself can do using my own brain.
I never understood how they can prove that someone is cheating, anyway. After all. they can't come in your home and watch. But still, I firmly believe it's best to use the honest approach. You can only hurt your self by cheating. (I think Gomer Pyle said that)
I personally have never used a computer to cheat. I do remember though on some chess site that they use techniques to detect cheaters which is not disclosed.
Out of interest, is it really possible or are they just trying to deter cheaters? Do computers have a certain style of play which is noticably different to a human?
Lau
Yup. They do. Their style is this: WIN THE GAME!! (Just kidding) Actually, computers are very poor positional players, they obviously can not make judgements or ascessments at a glance like we can. They can't look at a position and say"Hmm. I'm really gaining an advantage in SPACE on this side of the board. But what they can do, and do WELL is crunch numbers, and figure the best way to gobble up material. As you know, when you win material, odds increase in your favor. That's basicly how they think. But they can't think about chess principles, such as "I should really refrain from bringing out my queen too early." Or, I should try to get all my pieces working together in harmony" or "Bishops are usually better when there are a lot of open diagonals and fewer pawns on the board" etc, etc. They simply can't think like a human. But like I said, they CAN crunch those numbers!
Still, I'm at a loss as to how they tell if you are using one. After all, the move I choose, just may very well be the same one the computer chose in a given position. How can they tell if it came from my brain or the silicone savante? I don't know. I just know that I am not going to cheat and find out the hard way. After all, Big Brother just may have cameras in my room watching me. (Not!)