I sometimes send games for analysis by the Chess.com computer, and sometimes I pinch myself for missing the correct continuation.
However, there are times when I violently disagree with its analysis. What it does not take into account, apparently, is the style of play of the individual. I don't, for example, deliberately go in for 'hairy' positions, yet the computer wishes me to place myself in hairy positions. Come on, can you see apositional player like Petrosian playing like a Tal? Do you see yourself as a combinational (tactical) player playing a real long term incremental development towards an ending with an extra pawn which you patiently nurse to a win? No? My point exactly! Don't get me wrong, I am not against a great continuation which confers a visible or tangible advantage its when my position looks like I have been short changed, that I question the analysis.
Is it just me?
what are "hairy" positions? remember that the level of the computer is only 2200 and that some of your continuations are better then that.
also every computer has well the same style and it is very hard for them to play positionally.
Computers often have a very limited "positional eye"...It's better to read some good books about positional themes (like that one of Baburin or Sokolov about pawn structures) then believe in computers judgement. In tactic, they are pretty good, but everyone have a personal preferencies, and that's the point.
I hate it when the computer says I made more than 50% bad moves. I don't use computer analysis much anymore.
Don't take the computer analysis offered through this site as the ultimate word. Use it to find obvious errors. If you want much better analysis, there are plenty of open source engines out there that you could download.
From looking at your rating (which is above mine, so don't think I'm insulting you), I hate to say it, but you probably are making less than 50% 'correct' moves.
Hi Madpawn, I want say to you that computer doesnt understand yours idea, his only interest is to get position where things are equal or slightly better if things were like that before. Computer as I could see doesnt go for agresive ideas never if there is any risk, this is why we are not computers. Like for example in my game where I performed Budapest rook lift Ra6 with idea of transfering rook to h6 with nice atack on kingside, computer suggest me to play d6 and blocking 6th rank, just to get some influence in the center. I think that computer is good if you want see did you have somewhere forced win, or is there any way to defend some hard position, but if you want to examen some positions with hope that computer will give you idea for continuation I think that you will just like me be very disapointed. BTW tnx for your comments on my article it is very good when higher rated guy then me gives me good mark.
I think the computer analysis on this site isn't great. I played a really good move in a game, and this site's analysis said it was a blunder, to my complete surprise. I then ran the same position through Fritz, and Fritz agreed with me that it was a good move.
Something like Fritz is much better, IMO.
i completely agree i made a move bg5 once to pin the knight which won me the game and i got a ? h6 bh4 g5 nxg5 hxg5 bxg5 and won the n with qf3 and i got a damn ? and havnt used the analysis since
My only problem with the chess.com analysis computer is that it views Re1 as a bad move. Many grandmasters have played it and recommend it as a solid developing move, once the minor pieces are developed.
My computer analysis says all my moves are bad!
Come on, can you see apositional player like Petrosian playing like a Tal?
Most of the time, yes. Most of the time they'd both just go for the best move, they were both really strong in all positions, quiet or hairy. Like all world champions.
A difference in style is only visible if you consider a lot of games, not just one, let alone one position.
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.