Nova Daily - 16 March 2025: Recap Week 11
Hi!
In one of my previous blogs I responded to the question about the difference between the human approach and the mechanical approach. It's a very interesting discussion topic that relates to and is relevant for a lot of other aspects of chess.
Both in blogs and in printed literature, a lot has already been written on the use of the machine in chess; about its history (since the days of the Mechanical Turk to the NNUE matches of today) and its practice. Whatever your opinion on the engine might be, the reality cannot be denied: the introduction and development of the chess engine has reshaped, redefined and revolutionised every aspect of the landscape of chess: education, literature, commentary.
I don't have anything to add to the vast amount of information that's already out there, but I do have a few opinions to share about the use of the engine.
There are a lot of different opinions about whether and how to use the engine when you interact with chess. Some say that they don't use the engine at all because they want to keep an open mind (which might be true, but could also be an excuse not to have to learn how to deal with new technology: people tend to be rather conservative about their methods and technologies). Others use the engine almost exclusively as a substitute for using their brains. The approach differs from person to person and from case to case.
Why use engines?
This isn't a silly and trivial question. There are obvious advantages and drawbacks about using engines. As I've already touched upon in my March 9th blog, the engine is typically far better at finding the best move(s) than humans are.
In yesterday's blog I mentioned that there are two different types of "why". In some languages there is even a separate word for each of the different why's. In Russian, for example, there is the difference between почему (pochemu) and зачем (zachem), where pochemu asks for the motivation and zachem for the goal.
I won't make this a vocabulary lesson, but I'd like to delve deeper into the purpose of using engines. What goal are you trying to accomplish that you're using the engine for? The circumstances matter, and so does the intended purpose.
During his skydiving adventure, a skydiver finds himself horribly off course because of a combination of gust and the chute opening a little bit too late. He manages to land on the ground safely, but he has no idea where he is. After having strolled for an hour, he finally encounters a fellow human being.
"Sir," the skydiver says, "could you please tell me where I am?"
"Certainly," says the man, "51.25°N 0.45°W."
The skydiver raises an eyebrow. "Are you an accountant by any chance?"
The man seems taken aback. "Well, yes...how do you know?"
The skydiver rolls with his eyes. "No doubt that's exactly right," he says, "but it's not exactly helpful, is it?"
- Joke that my dad used to tell me
Analysis
The process of analysing games differs from person to person. Several things enter the equation, such as playing strength and focus of analysis. An opening theoretician will look at the same game with the French Defence differently than someone who's preparing a training session for a student to help them with their tournament repertoire. And someone who writes blogs about their favourite player will analyse games with an entirely different outcome.
I analyse my own online rapid games in my own way. First I write down my own thoughts (especially after having played my own games). After having done this, and analysing some variations within the gameviewer, I open up the database and the opening sources that I have access to, and try to see where in the opening I may have gone wrong, how to do it right, and check whether a high-rated model game exists.
During this process I'll have a whole set of questions about the game. I formulate these, try to come up with answers to these questions myself, and then check with the engine to see whether my ideas and answers about the game correspond to what the engine says. When I see the engine's assessment differ from my own, I make a note out of this, reassess my thoughts, and try to find out what makes the discrepancies to occur.
Analysing like this takes an awful lot of time, but I find it very rewarding to do: I get to the bottom of my games and I gain deep knowledge and understandingabout the games that I play. I'll be actively engaged in the learning process, and every question that I have will be relevant to my understanding.
It's important for this process that I use the engine only at the end of the analytical process. I'd cut my work short and deny myself the learning opportunities if I used the engine at any earlier moment.
Spectating
There are many different reasons why you'd want to watch live games. Sometimes you want to see how the world champion match is going. Check up on Faustino Oro's games at Tata Steel Chess. You may want to provide commentary on your Twitch stream. You have to write a report on a game for your website. Or you simply want to be entertained by high-quality games.
Each of these reasons is valid, and each of these reasons has influence on the level of usefulness of the engine.
If you're a livestreamer and you have to break down the game in front of your audience, the engine can still be useful, but you have to provide more substance than what anyone can see for themselves. It's sometimes a bit disappointing to watch someone provide commentary, only to parrot the engine lines as if it were their own opinion. Something's not right if the streamer themselves can be omitted from their own commentary session.
On the other hand, engines can be very useful if you're contractually obliged to write an article under deadline pressure: it's easier to single out the most impactful moments.
If you're a Caruana fan who occasionally checks up on his game during the work day to see if he's winning, a quick glance at the engine can tell you all you need to know. For entertainment purposes, there's nothing wrong with using an engine during watch parties. Especially if you want to enter chatrooms sounding like Carlsen 6.0 to bash the Super-GMs.
If you're a coach watching the game of your student live, you might want to switch the engine off completely. You'll be able to gather much more information about your student's experience by observing their body language, or by trying to put yourself in their shoes thinking about the position as if it were your own. "Is he calculating that knight sacrifice? Will she be able to overcome her indecision this time?"
There's another fun, interactive and educational game you can play when spectating high-rated players: Guess The Move. For this, too, it's better to switch the engine off.
Whatever the reason might be, it's useful to know why you're watching, and what you want to get out of the games. And if you try to study ongoing games, it's useful to ask how and when switching on the engine would come in handy.
Other uses
Engines can be great sparring partners. Chesscom has a plethora of bots that you can challenge, but there are even more ways to use the engine.
One possibly highly underrated way to use the engine is to set up positions and play them out. They can be great for endgame drills: checkmating with bishop and knight, winning rook endgames from the Lucena position, basic pawn endgames. Another great use is to take practical examples from your own games or from endgame books, set them up and play them out against the machine. You can restart as often as you like, and you can learn a great deal from this.
Going even further: you can set up a position and force two engines to play out the position against each other. This can be especially useful if there are opening lines that you have trouble with.
Overall, the engine can help with the study and preparation of openings. Though it's useful to also maintain a level of human perspective with regards to this, so that you can understand what it is you're doing.
For cross-checking the correctness of someone else's work, an engine can also be a great help.
The only type of engine use that I really don't approve of is as a way to gain outside assistance during an ongoing game of chess. You'd think it goes without saying, but it's not that obvious.
The week in chess
Week 2 of the BlogChamps submissions is over. It's been an emotional week for some, and an intense week for others. I've read a lot of wonderful blogs, and I'd like to thank everyone who submitted something. It kept me busy in a great way.
Not every game I played this week went my way. Still, I managed to reel in six wins in my rapid ratings in the end. I scaled the 2000 rating mark in rapid, and hope to be able to further this trend with some good chess. The time that I can get away with my mistakes doesn't seem to be over yet, and I'm looking forward to the times that that will change.
Next week I'll be entering more moves into my repertoire. It's about time that I convert my Caro-Kann games into opening study.
My current scores:
- Rapid rating: 2043 (+46)
- Blitz rating: 2301 (=)
- Bullet rating: 2515 (+15)
- Survival: 62 (+3)
- Puzzle Battle: 1706 (+46)
- Puzzles: 3574 (+32)
- Repertoire: 4063 moves (=)
Blogs:
https://www.chess.com/blog/nova-stone/nova-daily-9-march-2025
https://www.chess.com/blog/nova-stone/nova-daily-10-march-2025
https://www.chess.com/blog/nova-stone/nova-daily-11-march-2025
https://www.chess.com/blog/nova-stone/nova-daily-12-march-2025
https://www.chess.com/blog/nova-stone/nova-daily-13-march-2025
https://www.chess.com/blog/nova-stone/nova-daily-14-march-2025
https://www.chess.com/blog/nova-stone/nova-daily-15-march-2025
