17010 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
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.
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.
All my comments were directed towards this game. I know tmkroll has some good analysis in other games. This last post was disappointing.
I had a long response and chess.com logged me out seems to have and erased it. :/
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.
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."
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.
Played one ridicolous one t'day ():
>> that's ridiculous!
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.
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.
If time travel was possible
by briansladovich a few minutes ago
What do chess champions see that we do not?
by Synaphai a few minutes ago
Get Free Coaching
by Sexy-Sunshine 5 minutes ago
12/19/2014 - Honfi - Csenady, Hungary 1963
by chessnyt 6 minutes ago
Most Moves Before Capture (GM event level)?
by kalpak27 7 minutes ago
Sound in Live chess
by 05jogrady 10 minutes ago
I never should have deleted my chess.com anniversary trophies...
by Calamondin 12 minutes ago
Lesson BOO003 - Boor's Tusk
by Stanich 15 minutes ago
Who was Bobby Fischer?
by ipcress12 17 minutes ago
Extremely Difficult Mate in 3 (Grandmasters Only Please)
by The_Ghostess_Lola 20 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!