Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Post your best miniatures here


  • 13 hours ago · Quote · #5761

    tmkroll

    Greek Gift again. I get this sort of thing a lot when White takes the Benoni Gambit or plays c3 or e3 or something against it. Not very strong competition but my opponent ran it through the LiChess analysis which I think is some form of Stockfish, and it says I played a perfect game.



  • 5 hours ago · Quote · #5762

    Barefoot_Player

    So why are 7.c3?! and 9.Bb5? errors?

    Why do you rely on an engine to annotate your game? Do you accept it's evaluations blindly? Why don't analyze this game yourself?

    What would you do if someone was to ask you about 8.Bb5!? Bd7 9.Bg5!? Would this be a good sequence of moves for White? 

    Was 8.b4 a good move as it put Black's bishop n a good diagonal and the knight on f3 could be easily kicked off it's good square??

    What would be Black's best move if Whtie didn't take his Bishop on move 10?

    Silman was right. A Chess Engine Is Not Your Friend.

  • 5 hours ago · Quote · #5763

    chessman1504

    Barefoot_Player wrote:

    So why are 7.c3?! and 9.Bb5? errors?

    Why do you rely on an engine to annotate your game? Do you accept it's evaluations blindly? Why don't analyze this game yourself?

    What would you do if someone was to ask you about 8.Bb5!? Bd7 9.Bg5!? Would this be a good sequence of moves for White? 

    Was 8.b4 a good move as it put Black's bishop n a good diagonal and the knight on f3 could be easily kicked off it's good square??

    What would be Black's best move if Whtie didn't take his Bishop on move 10?

    Silman was right. A Chess Engine Is Not Your Friend.

    Well, I think tmkroll posted this game for its interesting qualities, not necessarily to do a deep analysis for us. From what I can tell, he is not using the engine for analysis; he is simply showing how the engine evaluation changes as the game progresses, since he did mention how the engine considered his game perfect.Your comment seems to suggest that he is one who relies too much on engine analysis without using his judgment, but tmkroll has posted deep analysis before, so I do not think this post is representative of his approach as a whole.

  • 3 hours ago · Quote · #5764

    Barefoot_Player

    chessman,

    All my comments were directed towards this game. I know tmkroll has some good analysis in other games. This last post was disappointing.

    barefoot_player

  • 3 hours ago · Quote · #5765

    tmkroll

    I had a long response and chess.com logged me out seems to have and erased it. :/

    Thanks, Chessman.

    Barefoot, I didn't run the analysis, my opponent did, though I did only post the game because it's the first time I've seen that Stockfish analysis say all my play was right. I think I have played against 8. Bb5 in this position before (or something very similar.) I didn't defend with Bd7 though that would have been the safe play. I let White do his/her thing on c6, win a rook, and then I got my Greek Gift in. My opponent counter-sacrificed the Queen which was best, and we ended up with a weird material imbalance and a dynamically equal position. That game was much more interesting than this one but it wasn't a miniature. I'm not sure if it was best, or even good, but I'd probably play it again in Blitz. I think I got good practical chances. The rest of your stuff I had answered but it got long and rambly and I don't think I need to type it again. I don't think conclusions in the Silman article were right at all. If new engine analysis blows a hole in a GM's idea it does, in fact, mean the idea was wrong in that position and that is, in fact, good to know. It doesn't mean the whole idea is always wrong. He should give his readers more credit than that. We're not stupid, we can tell the difference, and I think Kasparov's old ideas about engines being good for the development of chess are more accurate.

  • 84 minutes ago · Quote · #5766

    chessman1504

    Barefoot_Player wrote:

    chessman,

    All my comments were directed towards this game. I know tmkroll has some good analysis in other games. This last post was disappointing.

    barefoot_player

    Okay, I'm sorry for misunderstanding. Thank you for the clarification. I was particularly drawn to the comment on "A Chess Engine is Not Your Friend."

  • 48 minutes ago · Quote · #5767

    tmkroll

    The Stockfish analysis was only in there because I copied the pgn from Lichess. I guess I'll try to avoid doing that in the future as seems weirdly provacative even as I said in the first post what it was if people read what I wrote.

  • 34 minutes ago · Quote · #5768

    SpeakMyLanguage

    TheGoalkeeper wrote:

    Played one ridicolous one t'day ():

    Heh heh.

    >> that's ridiculous!

  • 30 minutes ago · Quote · #5769

    Barefoot_Player

    Tm, chess, et al,

    I was more concerned about this part, "... and it says I played a perfect game.", which is pretty big claim to make.

    barefoot_player

     


  • 21 minutes ago · Quote · #5770

    tmkroll

    What I meant by that was the engine rated all of my moves as right, no "innacuracies", "mistakes", or "blunders." It's possible it wasn't all top engine choices... I don't know how that analysis function works. 1... c5 is certainly not a good move as much as I like to play it, but engine analysis must be taken with a grain of salt. Whatever you think about engines or that particular one with those particularly setting, I fail to see how announcing that it thought my play was without error is a "big claim" when it's simply true.


Back to Top

Post your reply: