Sicilian or e5?

I don't care about "if".

"If" you do, then feel free to swallow an engine.

You will probably be a GM... rather not.

Methinks you meant this for @Joey dear, but the posting order got mixed up.

He listens poorly, in any case.

It doesn't matter if, only when.  GM consultations will eventually solve the software problems entailed.

I use engine advice only for (post-game) analysis of middlegames.  Rest of the time (when he's available) I query my 2400 strength Armenian coach, as it should be.  

He also has a Ph.D. in physics, and a Patent Law Degree.  Pretty well rounded guy.

I completely agree with you, @Pfren, regarding the many folks on this site who slavishly follow engine evaluations.  It's a silly crutch.

I use Rybka for about 1 hour per week, on average.  It lets me sleep much better after OTB tourneys.  It points out my middle game inaccuracies, making my subsequent sleep restful.  

Engines can teach you "death by a thousand cuts," mostly in the middlegame, or in romantic openings.  In the endgame, (often times) they seem breathtakingly dumb.

Indeed, you are right.  You learned much quicker than me how to be a lout.

Agreed on the endgame thing. There are stong CC players that rip Computers apart and their strategy is to head to endgame or blocked positions where computers lose the thread. Computers are tools. We play chess mainly because of the compeition involved thats what is fun for the vast majority of players. The problem of transportation has come a long way since we ran or rode horses but track and field is still one of the most popular events in the world. It is the HUMAN factor that makes things exicting.

Absolutely.  And treating engines like sages makes us fools.

People (on foot, and later horseback) used to race (and win) against the early automobiles.  

Have to agree with you there. But can you post a game or position where a .10 advantage is enough to win the game, with perfect play?

that is quite true about how computers evaluate positions. They are very good at evaluating material but often they do not have a clue on how to evaluate long term positional plans [defensive or offensive]  So, stating .2 is enought to force a win or even stating 1.0 or sometimes higher is enough to force a win--is just not a true staement. 

Actually there are billions of positions that the computer would give plus 8.0 or above and yet the game is a dead draw.

White  K on c6  B on d5  P on c4

Black  K on e7  P on c5  B on g3  B on g1  B on    B on f4  B on e3

[hope I did not mess up but you should get the idea.]  There are also Pawn block positions which would be evaluated plus 8 or more by computers which are dead drawn.

there are billions of such positions and if you want an evaluation put the postion on your computer which you apparently think is good at evaluating positions?

This is one of billions of positions where a computer would indicate one side was inning but a human would know in  few seconds the position is a draw.

You are just mad because you could not think of one position where computers would not get the result correctly within 8.0 and I told you there are billions of such positions and you wanted me to show you just one and I did.

All who try to discussion anything with @Joey (Joy of Living) are subjected to repeated dismissals by his Lordship.

He hides behind a charade of "logic" writ large, and the pretense of claiming a math Ph.D.

Since he rarely engages anyone's arguments (without quickly dismissing them), one is tempted to assume he gets most of his "logic" mumbo jumbo from Wiki.

Perhaps I am wrong, but very little he has posted leads the reader to conclude othewise.

@Joey habitually goes out of his way to pick fights with folks like CM @Streetfighter (an OTB expert), or @Wormrose, the Administrator of the 1)...g6 Modern Group, and many others players, regardless of topic.

Apparently, he's now a lonely guy since his bosom buddy, @Ciljettu, was temporarilly banned from Chess.com for being so disagreeable and combative in the forums.

If the real David Taylor, former U.S. CC Champion, (perhaps @Ponz111) has indeed joined this thread (as I hope), then the intellectual level of our discussion should qualitatively improve, by roughly a factor of ten.

Chess players are such an eccentric group.  Myself included. 

joey for someone who is a fairly good chess player-you seem never to be able to admit a mistake.

Computers go brain dead [sometimes] in end games because of just the opposite[ in my experience]--i.e. one side has say a good N vs a bad B and the computer thinks the end game is even.

And I can give examples from my own games where computers could not figure out long term positional plans and thought the game even. One was a Ponziani position which many masters and grandmasters had declared dead drawn [and thus the Ponziani was not a good opening] but I came up with a very long and satisfying continuation to show White had great winning chances.

It is ok to make dogmatic statements but be sure you are right.

By the way I did not come up with the 4 Bishops position to prove computers can make very big mistakes. I came up with that positon to show you that you were wrong when you indicated I could not come up with such a position.

computers simply have issues in certain positions if it requires a lot of maneuvering. Computers can and have figured out endgame positions we thought had an certain evaluation for a long time. Computers need a LOT Of time to sort these positions out and positions are very simple, with only a few pieces on the board. As more pieces appear they start to lose their ability to find moves even if the ideas are obvious to humans. the +8 problem is probably overstating it but the simple fact is sometimes computers make people smile and remind us of their limitations with crazy assessments in easily drawn or lost positions, while other times computers amaze us with their tactical wizardry. 

When I was messing around with computers one of the things I found was to stop looking at the static evaluation but look at the trend of the evaluation. if a position is 8+ and stays that way for 10 moves maybe theres a draw. What i learned to look for was a trend over say 6-10 moves if a position is trending one way or another then thats something to follow. 
Computers also help in assessing the practical aspects of a position if you are looking at a line and see that there are multiple paths that look reasonable but theres only one that maintains the balance and any slip results in a lost or suffering type position then you can ask yourself if you can reasonably be expected to play this position.

Computers are tools that simple but so far they have not solved chess only shown us our limitations as humans. 

Reubin Fine is still alive?

Your statement: "Computers do get brain dead in endings but it is usually about being unable to find wins not because they think one side has an overwhelming advantage when they don't" is quite convulated. A kind of

  triple negative!  Hard to really understand what you mean or what you are getting at.

I really do appreciate all these comments. But as you can see, this is an active forum, and ppl are posting huge comments paragraphs long. Now i'm in school still and dont have much spare time. Please, continue posting, but with little time its hard for me to read long posts that are huge. If you can in anyway, try seeing if you can condense your post in anyway to make it easier. And lets stay on topic.

Once again, i would like to thank all those who have posted

Oh, thank you so much Mr joey!  I think you should write a book!

Just make up stuff and put it in a book--that would be interesting!

It's the exact same exact thing with 1.e4.

Both are deadly when misplayed.