using chess engines as a weak player

Originally posted by torten
Don't recall reading that,all I saw about the use of engines was playing against them.Where is that bit?

Here:

The special preparation of young chess players is being modified nowadays due to additional opportunities that could not be realized previously due to technological restrictions.

First, an exceptionally powerful tool has appeared in the chess players' toolkit, the personal computer. It accomplishes many functions such as collecting, systematizing and storing various chess data (games, fragments, positions for analysis), as well as tactical analysis of selected positions of a highest quality.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
What ever you think a box has taught you it has only scratched the surface.
Not even that. Play and play and play.
Build up your board craft, soon it all starts to drop into place.

Nevertheless, I have won at least one game because of something a box showed me.

After-game analysis showed me that I missed a certain easy tactical trap repeatedly. Most often it wasn't even used against me - it was a trap that I could have used in several of my games (in the QG, usually), but overlooked. Reveal Hidden Content The box picked it out immediately. I could've won games that I lost, and I could've won games more easily that I won the hard way.
So after going through my games again with my computer, I noticed that it kept recommending this, and I kept missing it. Whaddayaknow, a few games later this opportunity came up again... and this time I jumped at it! I got a queen for a bishop, and won that game rather easily.

Now, you're going to say that a good human teacher, or even a decent human companion, or a tactics book, could have taught me that manoeuvre. And you're right - but they didn't. My computer taught me that manoeuvre. Did it make me a better player? Hardly. Did it make me world champion? Bah. But it taught me that one tactical trick, and that one tactical trick worked.
So never pretend that computers are useless for us patzers - we just need to realise what they can teach us, and what they can't.

Richard

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
That is correct, and no one has claimed "just using engines" anywhere, although I think Kopatov may be laboring under that misconception. The word "just" should not be in the sentence.

We all agree that just using an engine to help analyze your games is not best, and no one has made a point saying otherwise.

If you thought that someone had claimed that, then that is the source of the confusion, perhaps.

Went back to the first post.
You are correct,the original question was 'are engines harmful' and 'how to use them'

I seem to have run of the track.Pardon my stupidity 😀

@king
I see it now.Thanks.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Nevertheless, I have won at least one game because of something a box showed me.

After-game analysis showed me that I missed a certain easy tactical trap repeatedly. Most often it wasn't even used against me - it was a trap that I could have used in several of my games (in the QG, usually), but overlooked. [hidden]It\'s the diagonal attack wit ers - we just need to realise what they can teach us, and what they can't.

Richard

not a very good example. pinning the queen in qgd, that must be the oldest trick in the book. a human player would've shown it to you the FIRST day you'd look at qgd. 🙂

Hi V

Here.


1.Ne4 as played by you or 1.Ng4 suggested by the box?
(Which does the box think is best, what is the 'score' for both moves?)

Both hit the f2 pawn. You know and I know that the box is NOT looking
at this mating pattern...


and expecting to play it. That would require some bad moves by White.
It will be looking for the best moves by White and fxe3 (after Ne3) is not one
of them.

It's threat is Nxf2 and that is what the box played 1.Ng4 for.

Black is totally lost after both moves.
If 1.Ng4 is top choice then it will have some future totally winning position
where it is 0.05 better than 1.Ne4. It was not played to play Ne3 expecting PxN.

Your chosen move was better, it places a Knight on a central square
with the same threat of Nxf2.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I'd never say:
"sorry, let's cut out the useless information?"
Infact I would wallow in that position finding all the neat tricks squeezing it it dry eg.



"I'll show you plenty of notes from GMs that I don't understand. "
And me. And like you I shuffle things about and often find ideas that are
not considered in GM notes. But I don't shunt them into a box.
I won't be playing a box. I look for human moves and replies to my ideas.

And White is better or winning statements.
Sometimes when you find the full game (this is where a computer is a God send.
Databases!!) you will find Mr 'White is better' actually lost or failed to press home
his plus.

Anyway you all know where I stand regarding computers.
If these things are so wonderful at teaching and making better chess players
of everyone then where are they all? The planet should be teeming with them.

I still have all the great great players from 1800 to 1980 who never learned
anything from a computer. Brilliant chess players whose games ooze with
creativy and style.

Hi Wandering King.

I see the 'gang' are still name dropping about who uses computers.
Now it's Anand and Kramnik....😕

It's like them saying to me:
"Kramnik plays the Berlin Defence to the Lopez so should you."

I'm not Kramnik, I could not hold that position against an 1800 player.

I told you you would learn from your losses I think I know the trick
you mention but you have to show it. (how did it take you so long to spot it?)

I never learned nothing from a computer so I don't know how you would
go about using one to better yourself.

The idea that you try a move, see the computers response then try another
move is laughable. How do you go about choosing which random move to choose?
Perhaps you can get the computer to choose which move you want to choose and
you can sit there watching itself beat itself up.

But if that is way to go then so be it. (I'm not arguing with Anand and Kramnik) 😉

However I can highly recommend a book and board. It has proven track
record dating back hundreds of years producing some brilliant and great
chess players.

If you are serious about your chess then this is a well trodden path and very
enjoyable.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
1.Ne4 as played by you or 1.Ng4 suggested by the box? Both hit the f2 pawn.
It will be looking for the best moves by White and fxe3 (after Ne3) is not one
of them.

If 1.Ng4 is top choice then it will have some future totally winning position where it is 0.05 better than 1.Ne4. It was not played to play Ne3 expecting PxN. Your chosen move was better, it places a Knight on a central square
with the same threat of Nxf2.

That is what I think a lot. That it is sometimes not apparent and always not explained the reason for the top recommended move by an engine, and that top move could actually lead one down a less favorable path and/or provide less opportunity, especially with the engine relying on future obscure moves and with small numerical differences not meaning much.

Ne4 and Ng4 both attacked f2, but Ne4 (the move V did) was arguably better because the N is more centrally placed at e4 than g4 (yet acknowledging that the game was lost for white in either case).

With that said, I do see a reason for Ng4 --> Ne3 other than to entice the error fxe3, and that is to threaten the rook at f1. I am not saying the engine "saw" that. I don't know. I am just saying I noticed it.

Here's an example line where having the option of Ne3 makes a significant diffence:




If I start with Ne4, I don't have this option. Sure, I can still win in the line Ne4, Na3, Re2, Rc8, Nxf2, Rc2, etc. but it's not as direct as Ng4.

Originally posted by greenpawn34

1.Ne4 as played by you or 1.Ng4 suggested by the box?
(Which does the box think is best, what is the 'score' for both moves?)

On my machine, Fritz likes 1...Ng4 best, rating it 6.5 points for Black. 1...Ne4 is its second choice with 4.7 points (still easily winning).

Originally posted by WanderingKing
I understand I have to get endgame technique, strategic understanding and tactical skills to become a decent player and that I should study to do that. I do this occasionally but I don't have time or patience to start doing it often. Perhaps I will in the future, but now, this is not what I want to do. I'm starting to like it here, because it turns out that given enough time I can actually win a game, so maybe this is going to change soon.

I can't believe anyone is still encouraging this guy - he is looking for a shortcut to success, he has no patience to study chess. Do computers really offer a "microwave solution" to chess success for beginners?

I'm bowing out of this topic, good luck Mr OP with your impatient quest for overnight success.

Originally posted by kopatov
I can't believe anyone is still encouraging this guy - he is looking for a shortcut to success, he has no patience to study chess. Do computers really offer a "microwave solution" to chess success for beginners?

I'm bowing out of this topic, good luck Mr OP with your impatient quest for overnight success.

Kopatov, you're reading words that haven't been written again. Please don't do that. It's irritating.

Hi, greenpawn34.

Thank you again for your advice. I hope it's OK if I say that your enthusiasm for chess is contagious.


I told you you would learn from your losses I think I know the trick
you mention but you have to show it. (how did it take you so long to spot it?)


I'm not sure what trick... Do you mean something from another thread? I don't remember talking about one here. This thread is long already and there's another long one going on so I'm getting a bit lost.

Originally posted by greenpawn34



mate.}[/pgn]



Anyway you all know where I stand regarding computers.
If these things are so wonderful at teaching and making better chess players
of everyone then where are they all? The planet should be teeming with them.






The idea that you try a move, see the computers response then try another
move is laughable. How do you go a ...[text shortened]... uter to choose which move you want to choose and
you can sit there watching itself beat itself up.

Originally posted by greenpawn34

"Anyway you all know where I stand regarding computers.
If these things are so wonderful at teaching and making better chess players
of everyone then where are they all? The planet should be teeming with them."

They are in the US, where scholastic chess has exploded. Success can be attributed to good coaches and better training methods, with computers playing a supporting role. No one thing gets all the credit-the result is the sum total of a variety of good training practices.

"The idea that you try a move, see the computers response then try another
move is laughable. How do you go about choosing which random move to choose?
Perhaps you can get the computer to choose which move you want to choose and
you can sit there watching itself beat itself up."

Geoff, you know this is wrong. Random moves? I know you have sat in a skittles room or a pub after a tournament game, and looked at a position with friends where you have collectively analyzed paths not taken, with questions like "What if I had played this instead?"

You didn't use random moves, you used ideas, and tested them with friends. I would not consider that a laughable affair. A computer won't be as fun or friendly, but it will be more accurate.

Of course, I could be wrong, and you have never engaged in an activity such as this, but I would be very surprised if that were the case.

Granted, you did say that you have never learned from a computer, so you wouldn't know what can be gained, but then at least you should be a little more open-minded and not misrepresent an idea. Random? Please.

Hi Paul.

I do it all the time and as often as I can. Let's try this, let's try that.
And WE form our own colclussions on what we see. We do not have
a box telling us what it thinks.

I'd like to think I and the players I hang out with are not too bad and
our suggestions fit in with the position. We know what we are doing.

I've sat in on more adjournments than I've had hot dinners (and I hate salads).
The good guys, the really good guys, move a few, look at and judge the position
and try something else. There is no box involved.

The thread is about less experienced players and computers.
I was thinking about a beginner being told to sit in front of a screen
and playing one move to see what the box thought (what number it came up with)
then take it back and try another move.
This random move method is what I found laughable.

"Scholastic chess has exploded."

Good news. How big is the BANG!

Is the blast emitting a bunch of players who will hit a ceiling once they outgrow
thier computers.
Or (and heaven save us) produce a bunch of box trained players producing
sterile computer like games because their creativity has been stifled.

I'm of the opinion that modern coaches praise the computer so much because
it makes their job easier. Not for the good they do.

Lazy coaches teaching chess players looking for a quick fix. The perfect scenario.
ChessBorg will embrace the clones and sell them software forever.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Paul.

I do it all the time and as often as I can. Let's try this, let's try that.
And [b]WE form our own colclussions on what we see. We do not have
a box telling us what it thinks.

I'd like to think I and the players I hang out with are not too bad and
our suggestions fit in with the position. We know what we are doing.

I've sat in on ...[text shortened]... The perfect scenario.
ChessBorg will embrace the clones and sell them software forever.[/b]

I think GM Nakamura is the protype of this new kind of player, and he is the single biggest influence on US kids.

He is very creative, but he could also be an exception or anomaly- his stepfather is an exceptional chess coach as well. We'll just have to wait and see and hope for the best on that one!

Don't put too much stock in what I am about to say, but from my observations of their games, there seem to be far more true 1. e4 and 1. d4 scholastic players, who are playing the QGD and the Ruy and the Open Sicilian, where it used to be all "system" openings.

It used to be that I would walk past the first 20 boards, and they were all 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 closed Sicilians, but now I am seeing Ruys, Scotch games, and even an Evans Gambit game that was beautiful to watch.

I'm just banking this off of one tournament, but I think there is hope.

Hi V.

(this position is bordering on necrophilia) 🙂

But what about my choice, the human move. h3 instead of Rc8.



Next year year when Shark MK1 makes it's debut. $199.99 with 3D specs supplied.
It will no doubt say in this position.


that 1...Re2 is the best move pre-empting the Na3 defence. 😉

Hi WK.

Loads of enthusiam very little else. (good at tactics...usually...well sometimes).

Don't want you to end up like one of the Stepford Chess Players.
They are easy to spot at tournaments, the first thing they do is look for
the mouse to move their pieces.

The second thing to look for (and this is very true) the day after you have
beaten them they tell you their computer has found a win for them.
If they cannot find you, you get an email or if you are very unlucky,
(and this happened to a mate of mine) You get a phone call at 8:30
in the morning the night after a league match saying you should have lost!
(followed by an offer to send you the analysis.) Incredible.

I'll give you a 5 minute lecture (that is how long it will take to read the rest
of this thread.) You are about to learn more about the game in these 5 minutes
than you will faffing about with a glorified pocket calculator.

Enjoy.

Eladar posted about the purpose of an opening. I chipped in when I saw an
excuse to praise Fischer. (You want a hero. have two. Fischer & Morphy).
Look at their games, Morphy first then Fischer.
Start thinking, what would Morphy do, what would Fischer do.
(You could try thinking what greenpawn would do, it's fun, usually unsound
but overall succesful. Very succesful v the Stepford Players.)

A wee bit of self study (no quick fix in this game) but if you are not yet
acquainted with the Morphy games then I envy you.
It's like getting laid for the first time.

What do I want from an opening? Two traps and an attack.

Trap 1.



Trap 2 is older than God's Dog but has many victims
I nearly pull it off (again) in Game 7141673.



OK we now see Traps 1 and 2 in action. Both fail. So I attack.



What should have happened.



There you are. I bet there is at least one thing you have picked up
that you keep forever and no box invovled.
Now get out there, sets two traps and attack!!!

Hi Paul.

Nakamura is a gifted player, you cannot teach that.
I notice he has had to change his style against the good guys. He's doing it with
a fair amount of success.

An Evans Gambit!! someone is going to get a row from their coach and
get an email showing how they should lost. 😉 (post the game).