using chess engines as a weak player

Originally posted by kopatov
Only "just started" since 29th October 2009? Interesting.

I'm glad I've managed to intrigue you. I'm sure you'll be able to puzzle this one out by yourself. Thank you for your kindness.

Originally posted by WanderingKing
I'm glad I've managed to intrigue you. I'm sure you'll be able to puzzle this one out by yourself. Thank you for your kindness.

Interesting, no very interesting I might add.

You've clearly got a brain if your about to graduate with a maths degree.

I think your thinking about it all too much, too deeply and its screwing up your head.. does that make sense?

Have you watched any Chess tutorial DVDs/Videos they may help.

Originally posted by plopzilla
You've clearly got a brain if your about to graduate with a maths degree.

I think your thinking about it all too much, too deeply and its screwing up your head.. does that make sense?

Have you watched any Chess tutorial DVDs/Videos they may help.

Well, I only watch youtube videos about chess... I don't have the money to buy stuff. :-( I use chesstempo to train tactics, because it's free.

Originally posted by WanderingKing
I'm a weak player (about 1100-1300 on the sites where I have an estabilished rating). This means I am very often unable to assess positions by myself. After I finish a (usually lost) game of rapid chess, I try to analyze it, but without much success. Being curious I ask Stockfish and I notice that seeing a number next to a move often satisfies my curio ...[text shortened]... ehind the number. Do you think this is harmful for my development? How should I use an engine?

Just my 2 cents, but I find engine input valuable, especially when comparing engines. Engines evaluate based on the parameters set by each programmer, so engine outputs will vary based on the human programmer (beyond the obvious brute force calculating part, obviously).

I pay attention to the moves and which side is considered better, but I ignore the actual evaluation numbers, as the scales can be somewhat contextually arbitrary, and will vary from program to program.

I prefer 5 lines per engine, and I compare what the engine is "looking at" vs what inputs I have from GMs and IMs in books and other sources.

Very often, a computer will identify tactical themes that I had not considered. When it happens, I make a mental (and sometimes electronic) note to myself to look for that theme in future games.

All this aside, the opinion of a human who is stronger than you and who can interact with you in a discussion over the board is worth far more than any engine- but you have to work with what is available to you. Good luck!

Originally posted by plopzilla
You've clearly got a brain if your about to graduate with a maths degree.

No problem with your post, it just kinda urks me whenever someone says "maths", plural. That's like saying someone has a degree in "psychologies".

Originally posted by vivify
No problem with your post, it just kinda urks me whenever someone says "maths", plural. That's like saying someone has a degree in "psychologies".

Or like saying someone has a degree in physic, mechanic or electronic... 😕

Maths is used as an abbreviation for mathematics. But I think the bottom line is that people use the term differently depending on which part of the world they are from. Welcome to the bigger world! 🙂

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
Just my 2 cents, but I find engine input valuable, especially when comparing engines. Engines evaluate based on the parameters set by each programmer, so engine outputs will vary based on the human programmer (beyond the obvious brute force calculating part, obviously).

I pay attention to the moves and which side is considered better, but I ignore t ...[text shortened]... orth far more than any engine- but you have to work with what is available to you. Good luck!

Ha! That is like analyzing the games of Kramnik or Carslen (2800 level players) in the hope of improving at 1000-1200! The tactics/strategy at both levels are miles if not worlds apart.

Originally posted by kopatov
Ha! That is like analyzing the games of Kramnik or Carslen (2800 level players) in the hope of improving at 1000-1200! The tactics/strategy at both levels are miles if not worlds apart.

An engine can highlight both simple and complex tactics. You take what is instructive and don't worry about things which are too complex.

Originally posted by Varenka
An engine can highlight both simple and complex tactics. You take what is instructive and don't worry about things which are too complex.

Can you demonstrate this citing any examples of games?

Originally posted by kopatov
Can you demonstrate this citing any examples of games?

Here's an RHP game of mine which finished in the last few days.



I was Black and played Ne4. The engine later highlighed a better move based on a useful tactical pattern. It's quite simple but the fact is that I missed it.

Originally posted by kopatov
Ha! That is like analyzing the games of Kramnik or Carslen (2800 level players) in the hope of improving at 1000-1200! The tactics/strategy at both levels are miles if not worlds apart.

That's not really a true comparison. The point is that the computer is analyzing your games, not those of a master. At the 1000-1200 level, simple one- and two-movers are missed relatively regularly, and a computer will immediately identify it, and give the best move.

If anything, it is more helpful with the basic stuff, and as you get better, it gets harder to discern the finer nuances of lines where there is no clear tactic, but only positional and strategic considerations to interpret.

In any event, it has worked for me and others in my club, but if it doesn't work for you, sorry about that! Best of luck with whatever works for you.

Originally posted by Varenka
Here's an RHP game of mine which finished in the last few days.

[fen]1R6/5ppk/4pn2/3p3p/1P6/8/1rr2PPP/1N3RK1[/fen]

I was Black and played Ne4. The engine later highlighed a better move based on a useful tactical pattern. It's quite simple but the fact is that I missed it.

What he said! Perfect example.

Originally posted by Varenka
Here's an RHP game of mine which finished in the last few days.

[fen]1R6/5ppk/4pn2/3p3p/1P6/8/1rr2PPP/1N3RK1[/fen]

I was Black and played Ne4. The engine later highlighed a better move based on a useful tactical pattern. It's quite simple but the fact is that I missed it.

What move Ng4 then maybe Ne3? The computer would recommend different preceding moves (way stronger than you) so its not just the tactic here, the game would be totally different from what you would play yourself.

Originally posted by kopatov
What move Ng4 then maybe Ne3? The computer would recommend different preceding moves (way stronger than you) so its not just the tactic here, the game would be totally different from what you would play yourself.

Regardless of what other "too complex" analysis the computer may suggest in other positions, the fact is that it highlighted a nice tactical pattern that I found instructive (Ng4 -> Ne3, as you said). If a human player pointed this out to me after the game, would you really dismiss it as unhelpful?