using chess engines as a weak player

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.

Simply go to a big tournament and watch them in the skittles room. Kasparov was the pioneer, but almost all the strong players do it now, and they each seem to have their favorites- for instance, I know Svidler favors Houdini, and Davies likes Hiarcs.

Prior to decent engines, they all used seconds, but now they use seconds and engines, with the seconds primarily using the engines.

And no one has said that you learn by sitting behind and engine and watching it play. The point is that you play the game first, and then use the engine as a check or other opinion. Msistatements like this only diminish the credibility of your point.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
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-tha ...[text shortened]... how you learn at chess, marvel at how others learn, and let the results speak for themselves.

You response which is off course unsupported by any evidence from strong players or chess books has no factual basis and I have quoted it to demonstrate that pigs can fly.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
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 yo ...[text shortened]... mputer to learn everything there is to know about chess and become world champion".

Richard

Again I would kindly urge you to tell me where world champion foo in his "chronicles of a world champion" says weak players should sit behind an engine and "learn something from computers". Please show me, please do.

I would be shocked if a beginner couldn't learn from using a computer to analyze his games. Any teaching tool should help a beginner improve.

It seems quite a few people have come into the thread with blinkers over their eyes and have no knowledge of the core issues.

1. For amusement OP plays blitz/rapid chess games.
2. In the hope of improving, OP (rated about 1000) uses or is thinking of using an engine to help him to quote his own words "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."

So for those hard of hearing, the cycle is as follows - play rapid games, usually lose, put into engine in hope of improving, repeat cycle.

Originally posted by kopatov
Again I would kindly urge you to tell me where world champion foo in his "chronicles of a world champion" says weak players should sit behind an engine and "learn something from computers". Please show me, please do.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/feb/11/the-chess-master-and-the-computer/?page=1

Kasparov...

"There have been many unintended consequences, both positive and negative, of the rapid proliferation of powerful chess software. Kids love computers and take to them naturally, so it’s no surprise that the same is true of the combination of chess and computers. With the introduction of super-powerful software it became possible for a youngster to have a top- level opponent at home instead of needing a professional trainer from an early age. Countries with little by way of chess tradition and few available coaches can now produce prodigies."

Originally posted by kopatov
It seems quite a few people have come into the thread with blinkers over their eyes and have no knowledge of the core issues.

1. For amusement OP plays blitz/rapid chess games.
2. In the hope of improving, OP (rated about 1000) uses or is thinking of using an engine to help him to quote his own words [b]"This means I am very often unable to assess positi ...[text shortened]... follows - play rapid games, usually lose, put into engine in hope of improving, repeat cycle.

No,the cycle is
play rapid games,usually lose,try analyse,fail,put into engine,don't understand engine output,repeat cycle

@king
I don't think it'll harm your chess but I doubt you'll benefit much if any at all.
Better to ask a stronger player.If you don't know any then post your slower games on a chessforum and ask for analyses.Also add specific questions you might have.

There's also a ton of instruction to be found on this forum.
Search for these authors: greenpawn34 - nimzo5 - Paul Leggett - SwissGambit
And perhaps others I don't know about.
It takes some effort but you'll find it's worth it.
And it's free! 🙂

Originally posted by kopatov
You response which is off course unsupported by any evidence from strong players or chess books has no factual basis and I have quoted it to demonstrate that pigs can fly.

I could just as easily say that the same is true of your posts, but his has passed the point of relevance. The OP has answers to satisfy him, and you can think what you like.

Originally posted by kopatov
Again I would kindly urge you to tell me where world champion foo in his "chronicles of a world champion" says weak players should sit behind an engine and "learn something from computers". Please show me, please do.

Again, a dishonest representation of other people's points and opinions does not make you look any more intelligent. It merely reduces your already measly credibility to complete rubble.

Richard

Yo, kopatov! How much ya bench?

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
I could just as easily say that the same is true of your posts, but his has passed the point of relevance. The OP has answers to satisfy him, and you can think what you like.

true.

Originally posted by Varenka
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/feb/11/the-chess-master-and-the-computer/?page=1

Kasparov...

"There have been many unintended consequences, both positive and negative, of the rapid proliferation of powerful chess software. Kids love computers and take to them naturally, so it’s no surprise that the same is true of the combination of chess ...[text shortened]... es with little by way of chess tradition and few available coaches can now produce prodigies."

That is hardly any proof at all. Why did Magnus Carlsen hire Kasparov, he could have just bought stockfish instead if you are to be believed.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
I could just as easily say that the same is true of your posts, but his has passed the point of relevance. The OP has answers to satisfy him, and you can think what you like.

Try and do a little more thinking before you post nonsense.

Kopatov- I hardly think you are in a position of truth on this issue. Your arguments are anecdotal at best - can a weak player learn from a chess engine, of course they can. Is it the best way to improve, absolutely not.

Magnus hired Kaspy, sure, but in the Anand- Topalov champ. Anand got help from the Hiarcs team and Topalov hired Rybka...

please get down from your high horse.

This debate again. 😴
Can weaker players benefit from a strong computer.

First a quick look at the postion V posted.



Re the debate.

I see the same old reasoning being spurted out.

"Kasparov uses one......"

The OP is graded under 1200. He is not Kasparov. None of us are
and Kasparov became Kasparov a long long time before Fritz/Rybka/SickFisk.

On another thread Thread 141040 the OP is looking at this position.
Which came from the Blackburne Shilling Trap.


And wondering why SickFish gives this a 0.76+ for White.

I can only be blunt.
This is the trouble when a weaker players gets his hands on one of these things.
(I think they should come with a warning: 'No Good To Anyone Under 2200'.)

Who knows what millions of variations this thing has looked at and how far ahead it
is calculating to come up with 0.76 after 13 minutes. I cannot tell you what 0.76 of a postion is.

That is main drawback of these things.

You cannot ask it why? All you get is a number.

Chess is Judgement and Combinative ability these can only be learned by
playing the game and looking at games with human notes.

(Show me a note from Alekhine or Tartakower that says:
"And White is 0.76 better and I'll shut up.)

There is also technique (knowing how to win a basic K & R V K ending, how to push home a pawn etc.)
This is essential knowledge to be memorised and can be self taught.
Finally personality and luck (which as you play more and more will swing both ways.)

When you get better your judgement kicks in and you can get an idea
of why a box considers certain postions better than others.

But the stronger the box the more harder that can sometimes become.
God alone knows what the box has seen after 13 minutes of analysis
and if you want your 0.76+ you will have to play like a top computer for maybe
10 - 16 moves (and so will your oppoenent) to get it and that is way beyond most of us.

Put this postion into SickFish. The setting for the Blackburne Trap.


Knock off it's book mode and no way even after one year and 13 minutes
will it come up with 3...Nd4.

And yet Marko Krale has mated 12 players on here with 3..Nd4 in 7 moves.
I know a lad who has three 7 move mates with it OTB in recent league matches.

A box won't show you plausible 'human' moves if there is an ounce of trickery in it.
But this is the level we are at. The two move trick and trap level.
Not Kasparov's level.

So if the OP starts putting in his games into a box looking for tactics,
(the only thing he will understand) then there he will not be shown all the
trick and traps that lay underneath (the tricks and traps that we fall for).

He will not be saying to himself;

"That's a good idea, or I'll have to watch out for that one, or I'll try that,
it looks interesting." because he will not be shown it.

The OP states in that other thread after the first position.


"....white's bishop is unprotected and will have to move."

If the King is attacked then the laws state you must get out of check.
If a Bishop is attacked then you are never bound by law to move it.
Always look at what happens if you don't move it.

Get into that frame of thinking and combinations, tactical tricks & traps
will soon start to appear.

He would not have got that bit of free advice from any computer. 😉

A box is a tool strong players get the most benefit from.
Don't quote what the top players are doing. They are the Formula One drivers
of the chessworld, we are still on our push bikes.