thinking deficiencies

Originally posted by Ragwort
To tell the truth I looked at the engine because I was looking for the basis of Robbie's "apparently a mistake" remark in his opening post and thought it may have been prompted by a sudden evaluation drop in an engine output during his post game analysis. After all he said that e5 seemed so natural etc etc. so one wonders if he suddenly realized a move he th ...[text shortened]... er might appear here and give us some insight ... as least I am crediting my sources 😛

Haha, yes. I can't say if I would have come up with b5 as a way to defend the pawn in the moment and surely not when playing the faulty fork but I might have played it as a sac and found out later that it really isn't.

And yes, thank you for actually giving your source credit! But you should still throw it away or sell it! 😛

Originally posted by Ragwort
To tell the truth I looked at the engine because I was looking for the basis of Robbie's "apparently a mistake" remark in his opening post and thought it may have been prompted by a sudden evaluation drop in an engine output during his post game analysis. After all he said that e5 seemed so natural etc etc. so one wonders if he suddenly realized a move he th er might appear here and give us some insight ... as least I am crediting my sources 😛

he suddenly realized a move he thought good in a game he had won was in fact an error because the machine said so.

Exactly! The first thing I do after a game is to go over it with said engine and try to see if there is a spike, naturally during the game I thought my move was good however after deliberation I think its a horror, despite the engines measly evaluation of a pawn shaving or two. The silicon beast also did not like me exchanging bishop for knight, like it knows the difference. Its really interesting but correct me if I am wrong the difference right up until the end is no more than a pawn or two, until I played the last move d5, which any human will tell you without calculation is winning because the black King is cut off from its own pawns.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
he suddenly realized a move he thought good in a game he had won was in fact an error because the machine said so.

Exactly! The first thing I do after a game is to go over it with said engine and try to see if there is a spike, naturally during the game I thought my move was good however after deliberation I think its a horror, despite the engi ...[text shortened]... ll tell you without calculation is winning because the black King is cut off from its own pawns.

Its not so bad robbie, even GMs play moves that spike even worse than this and go on to win. You presented your opponent with problems he couldn't solve with little to no risk of losing. Throw away the engine! They are only good as a blunder checker or for endgames but you are helpless if you can't spot outright blunders at this stage and there are tablebases for endings.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Its not so bad robbie, even GMs play moves that spike even worse than this and go on to win. You presented your opponent with problems he couldn't solve with little to no risk of losing. Throw away the engine! They are only good as a blunder checker or for endgames but you are helpless if you can't spot outright blunders at this stage and there are tablebases for endings.

I use the engine for blunder checking after the game, I think its good for that. As for table-bases I have never used them, in fact, I wouldn't know how to use them to be honest. I don't trust chess engines with endgame analysis.

Originally posted by Ragwort
I think it is about how you assess positions. After the preliminary forced sequence we arrive at this position with Black to play his 17th move:-

[fen]rn3rk1/pp3ppp/2pPpn2/8/1P6/P1NP2P1/5PBP/R2R2K1 b - - 0 17[/fen]

So do you see this as

A: a passed d pawn that can cause trouble and may need blockading OR
B: a doubled isolated pawn on an open file? ...[text shortened]... in future. Maybe only if you can see a forced mate!

All in all an interesting thread.

What an excellent post. I wish I had more than one "thumbs up" to give it.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Ah, its all imagination my friend. I was sitting here trying to figure out a way to line pieces up on the diagonal so that the knight can snag the b7 pawn tactically but I hadn't finished looking at d7.

This is why you should throw out that piece of trash engine. The imagination would have been a much funner way to come up with b5.

Edit: I remember ...[text shortened]... be considered just like other pawn breaks because it is improving the situation of your bishop.

In my mind, b5 lends itself as an idea because it stops white's minority attack, although it creates other problems.

For positions like this, I like to do chessbase searches using only the pawn structure. Sometimes I get games that are really useful, in that a GM will show me some good ideas about how to play the pawns.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I use the engine for blunder checking after the game, I think its good for that. As for table-bases I have never used them, in fact, I wouldn't know how to use them to be honest. I don't trust chess engines with endgame analysis.

It isn't good for that really, if you rely on an engine to spot your blunders you most likely will keep making them!

Tablebases are a really useful learning tool for the endgame. When there is concrete knowledge on how to play a position earning the draw/win comes down to technique and Tablebases know the absolute best moves for positions with up to a certain amount of pieces, although I'm not sure of the exact number.

Edit: the endgame is probably the phase engines really accel at since they rely on brute force and there are less pieces to calculate allowing for deeper searches.

Originally posted by tomtom232
It isn't good for that really, if you rely on an engine to spot your blunders you most likely will keep making them!

Tablebases are a really useful learning tool for the endgame. When there is concrete knowledge on how to play a position earning the draw/win comes down to technique and Tablebases know the absolute best moves for positions with up to a c they rely on brute force and there are less pieces to calculate allowing for deeper searches.

I find it quite helpful, there are blunders that are immediately obvious, one knows practically after hitting the send button that it was an error and why it was erroneous and there are some that are not so obvious, an engine is helpful for discovering those that are not so obvious, in fact, I can find no other use for it. Endgame's I think are better learnt from humans.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I find it quite helpful, there are blunders that are immediately obvious, one knows practically after hitting the send button that it was an error and why it was erroneous and there are some that are not so obvious, an engine is helpful for discovering those that are not so obvious, in fact, I can find no other use for it. Endgame's I think are better learnt from humans.

I think you have it backwards. Opening is theory middle game is subjective and thus should be the most "human" part of the game while endgames tend to be conncrete and rely on technique. Technique is basically known winning methods and maneuvers which can be memorized and as such need no human interaction to learn.

Originally posted by tomtom232
I think you have it backwards. Opening is theory middle game is subjective and thus should be the most "human" part of the game while endgames tend to be conncrete and rely on technique. Technique is basically known winning methods and maneuvers which can be memorized and as such need no human interaction to learn.

I dunno, have you watched the video that GP posted with the dude cheating, some of those grandmasters were able to win and draw the games by going straight into an endgame, because it relies less on calculation and more on technique as you state. In the game that i played and basically swindled, we did not need to calculate after the last move d5, because its simply understood that the King cannot come to the aid of the pawns, a computer cannot do this nor impart this type of thinking, it can only calculate.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I dunno, have you watched the video that GP posted with the dude cheating, some of those grandmasters were able to win and draw the games by going straight into an endgame, because it relies less on calculation and more on technique as you state. In the game that i played and basically swindled, we did not need to calculate after the last move d5, b ...[text shortened]... of the pawns, a computer cannot do this nor impart this type of thinking, it can only calculate.

Yes, however these themes all appear in the middle game as well the difference being middlegame planning is not concrete. If you play the best moves in that position for both sides until white promotes you will immediately see that the king is cut off, you should not need someone to tell you this.

Would you know to trade into an endgame or even how if you couldn't plan effectively in the middlegame? The game is fluid and whole the only cuttoff lines are where theory ends, where subjective planning begins and ends and where technique begins but these "lines" are not apparent to a person who doesn't understand them, fails to recognize them or doesn't have the technique to finish a game.

These are the things a human can help with, they can tell you that what you need to work on based on these failings and even help you work on them but an engine cannot. The only thing an engine can do is give you concrete lines that only make sense if they lead to a direct win but a direct win is different for those with varying skill levels.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Yes, however these themes all appear in the middle game as well the difference being middlegame planning is not concrete. If you play the best moves in that position for both sides until white promotes you will immediately see that the king is cut off, you should not need someone to tell you this.

Would you know to trade into an endgame or even how if y hey lead to a direct win but a direct win is different for those with varying skill levels.

The best way of learning openings and middle game plans are in my opinion by learning pawn structures, if you know what plans are for the respective set ups you will know where the pieces go and you will be aware of the advantages and disadvantages. Today I was looking at IPQ positions and minority attack positions, it helps no end to know in a general sense what we are supposed to be aiming at for even if its a generality and it is, its gives form to our thoughts and helps us find the correct moves. Like moonbus stated we stop calculating and start thinking strategically. This is why I am so disgusted with my game, the plans should have been clear according to the pawn structure, but instead of thinking in general terms and acting concretely, i got side tracked with stupid one move threats and a crappy fork that didn't do anything but give me a losing position.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The best way of learning openings and middle game plans are in my opinion by learning pawn structures, if you know what plans are for the respective set ups you will know where the pieces go and you will be aware of the advantages and disadvantages. Today I was looking at IPQ positions and minority attack positions, it helps no end to know in a gener ...[text shortened]... tupid one move threats and a crappy fork that didn't do anything but give me a losing position.

You changed the pawn structure and consequently the plans. You had a general aim when you did this and that was to tie him down to the passed pawn while you created another weakness elsewhere and attack it... something has to give. He may have been able to be more successful than he was but he was unsure of what to do.

We can't have dogmas either robbie, positions are dynamic as well and a forced sequence isn't a distraction if we judge the end position good for us. The computer tells you that it was a bad move but in reality you made the position harder for black than it was for you and in my book that is a good move and all we can ask ourselves to do. Humans don't play like computers and thats why we all know that RJhinds is a cheater.

Originally posted by tomtom232
You changed the pawn structure and consequently the plans. You had a general aim when you did this and that was to tie him down to the passed pawn while you created another weakness elsewhere and attack it... something has to give. He may have been able to be more successful than he was but he was unsure of what to do.

We can't have dogmas either robbie ...[text shortened]... to do. Humans don't play like computers and thats why we all know that RJhinds is a cheater.

Why are you using my name in vain like that? Why not use the names Chucker, Kaoslos, Beebop5, and carpmaniac71, who are all rated over 2400 on here? 😏

Originally posted by tomtom232
You changed the pawn structure and consequently the plans. You had a general aim when you did this and that was to tie him down to the passed pawn while you created another weakness elsewhere and attack it... something has to give. He may have been able to be more successful than he was but he was unsure of what to do.

We can't have dogmas either robbie to do. Humans don't play like computers and thats why we all know that RJhinds is a cheater.

yes, but the interesting thing is , that when we change the structure, say to attack on the opposite wing (it usually happens when we create like in a stonewall configuration which has two leading pawns) then we must be aware that we are creating additional weaknesses. My plan was faulty Tomo, you yourself provided the bust, it was a bluff, plain and simple and a stronger player would have shredded it to bits. Honestly the beauty of studying pawn structures and their relative plans is that it saves us from being dogmatic, for its only really a general guide, where to put the pieces depends on the dynamics, but we must have something with which to anchor our thoughts.

Poor RJHinds, he gets a roasting in the forum and it cannot be much fun for him, if he has cheated and there seems little doubt in the minds of many then its only depriving himself of much of the joy and sorrow of chess. He deserves our pity for he has cheated himself.