using chess engines as a weak player

Originally posted by Varenka
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?

Ng4 is a tactic that most humans would be able to see without too much difficulty and you don't need a computer to point this out. A computer is capable of seeing things tactically that even a human GM cannot see, so a lot of its play will be overkill for a 1000-1200 player.

Originally posted by kopatov
Ng4 is a tactic that most humans would be able to see without too much difficulty and you don't need a computer to point this out. A computer is capable of seeing things tactically that even a human GM cannot see, so a lot of its play will be overkill for a 1000-1200 player.

Most humans wouldn't be able to see that, not even most humans who were taught the rules of chess, since most of them don't really understand the game. It sometimes happens that you lack a human who is able to identify a simple tactic for you. It may even happen that you lack a human who wants to talk to you about chess.

Originally posted by kopatov
you don't need a computer to point this out.

Oh yes I did! 🙂 Game 8586645

If you never miss such things, fair enough, but I do. And in the absence of having a stronger player available 24/7 free of charge, I find the computer's analysis more useful than compared to never knowing such tactics exist at all.

Originally posted by WanderingKing
Most humans wouldn't be able to see that, not even most humans who were taught the rules of chess, since most of them don't really understand the game. It sometimes happens that you lack a human who is able to identify a simple tactic for you. It may even happen that you lack a human who wants to talk to you about chess.

But then you are not interested in playing slow chess, you are interested in blitzing/playing rapid games out and then analyzing those with an engine in the hope of improving. When will you actually play humans and learn? When will you actually read a book and discover what chess is all about.

You cannot learn all (what chess reallly is about), from engine analysis of rapid games.

Originally posted by kopatov
You cannot learn all (what chess reallly is about), from engine analysis of rapid games.

We agree on this point. Although I think computer analysis of completed games can be useful, it is in the context that the player has spent sufficient time analysing by himself in advance... and only then checking his analysis. Lazy abuse of computer analysis is worse than no computer analysis.

Originally posted by kopatov
But then you are not interested in playing slow chess, you are interested in blitzing/playing rapid games out and then analyzing those with an engine in the hope of improving. When will you actually play humans and learn? When will you actually read a book and discover what chess is all about.

You cannot learn all (what chess reallly is about), from engine analysis of rapid games.

I think you should change that to "I cannot learn all (what chess really is about), from engine analysis of rapid games."

You can safely make claims about yourself, and we would all be compelled to accept them, as we know nothing about you other than from a few games and posts.

On the other hand, to make a categorical claim about a less-than-black-and-white subject regarding how others learn and apply new ideas, and the source of where they came from, and then persist in its absoluteness even after testimonials and examples to the contrary, seems to be pure contrariness.

Life is too short for that. Revel in how you learn at chess, marvel at how others learn, and let the results speak for themselves.

Originally posted by Varenka
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).

It wasn't Ne3 was it? That's an illegal move. So you did Ne4 and the engine recomended Ng4? Just cuirious. Your Ne4 looks good and intuitive. But I haven't analyze the position long.

In post-game analysis, the reason for (or strategy purpose of) an engine-recommended move is not always readily apparent. In contrast, a peer or mentor can discuss strategy.

However, an engine is nice because it is available 24/7 and has good brute force. Again, though, as we all can agree, discussing strategy with a human in analysis can be good. Yet, it is hard to question the validity of a "number" with an engine, except maybe in rare cases. Whereas, a human mentor or peer has to convince.

Originally posted by moon1969
It wasn't Ne3 was it? That's an illegal move. What was the engine recommended move? Just cuirious. Your Ng4 looks good and intuitive. But I haven't analyze the position long.

From the diagram, I played Ne4. I could have played Ng4 followed by Ne3.

Originally posted by Varenka
From the diagram, I played Ne4. I could have played Ng4 followed by Ne3.

I was just editing my comment because I realized I had misstated. Thanks for the quick reply. I thought it was Ng4, but don't immediately see the reason. Ne4 is a more central position attacking the f2 square. But I haven't looked at it closely.

Originally posted by Varenka
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?

Oh, I see what it is. Go to Ng4, so that you can go to Ne3. Duh. Ya engines are good for seeing those kind of moves.

Originally posted by kopatov
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.

I think you have some valid insights, and do think people can improve/learn in different ways.

However, your above comment is bothersome in the sense when analyzing a position for the best move, it doesn't matter how you got there. How the game arrived at that position has no impact on what is the best move. Even if you had a prior strategy.

I understand that there is momentum with strategy and it awkward to abruptly change strategy or focus, but new situations do arrive. But "technically" the point is that the best "technical" move or moves in a given position are independent"technically" of how the game arrived at that position. It might be helpful for you to understand that as you improve in chess.

Maybe you were somehow alluding that an engine would have had a more determined sound tactical approach to reach that position, as opposed to Varenka in his game which may have been less so due to humans playing without an engine. Yet, the conclusion remains, that analysis of a postion and how to move forward in the position is really independent of how one arrived at that position?

Perhaps then Paul Leggett you can then demonstrate to us by showing us which grandmaster/world champion reached that level by sitting behind a computer engine analyzing 5 lines. Which chess books tell you that to lean the opening/middle/endgame sit behind an engine and watch it playing?

Let us see examples please.

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".

you need to get out more...

Originally posted by kopatov
Perhaps then Paul Leggett you can then demonstrate to us by showing us which grandmaster/world champion reached that level by sitting behind a computer engine analyzing 5 lines. Which chess books tell you that to lean the opening/middle/endgame sit behind an engine and watch it playing?

Let us see examples please.

You might want to consider trying to understand what other people are saying before commenting. Paul Leggett did not say that it was a good idea to just watch a computer play. Base, sneaky tricks from The Art of Being Right don't work for everybody.

Originally posted by kopatov
You cannot learn all (what chess reallly is about), from engine analysis of rapid games.

You cannot learn everything from computers, therefore computers are completely useless and the tool of the devil. Yah. Interesting argument, that.

Of course you cannot learn all of chess from an engine. But you can pick up some things, to wit, cheap tactics. The question is, how do you use an engine as efficiently as possible so that you may learn from it those things that it can teach you? Remember before you answer that the question is not, I repeat IS NOT "How can I use a computer to learn everything there is to know about chess and become world champion".

Richard