Why are you talking in plural? I mean without concrete examples it's hard to offer you anything, as you improve over time and your knowledge about evaluating positions increases you'll be able to understand these lines more quickly. Although sometimes the engine gives lines that may seem strange and difficult for humans to play.
Analyzing confusing lines
Sort:
Dzindo07 wrote:
I mean without concrete examples it's hard to offer you anything, as you improve over time and your knowledge about evaluating positions increases you'll be able to understand these lines more quickly.
I can give a concrete example but explicitly explaining the advantages of a single line from a single game isn't a portable strategy that I can take to the next game. That's why I didn't offer a specific example. As the old saying goes, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." A specific example might allow me to eat today, but it really doesn't do much for the next time a line confuses me. Regarding the 'as you improve over time' line - I've found that if I don't understand a problem - I keep repeating it. Looking for a strategy that could work with all or most situations rather than try to work every instance from square one.
Dzindo07 wrote: Why are you talking in plural?
I have dissociative identity disorder (aka multiple personality disorder). 'We' use 'we' in our head but tend to convert when talking to others. However, since it was 5am when I posted this, I didn't have enough coffee in me to remember to not act like myself in public.
Ah like Gollum, cool cool.
Try to do the opposite if you can't figure it out. Use a bad move and see how the engine punishes it, it might shed some light on why a certain move was proposed. If you're in the opening then an opening book might be more useful than an engine to explain moves. Speaking of which you could check out some commented games by grandmasters to see their thought process when looking for moves.
@1
"these situations are becoming more frequent."
++ Well, then post one such representative position.
Otherwise we cannot but say something general, like the engine probably has a good reason not to take on g2 and you fail to see that.
Not the best example, as it's not hanging material but it's from a game I just played.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Qc7 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Ncb5 Qe5 7. Nf3 Qxe4+ 8. Be2 Nd5 9. Ng5 Qb4+ 10. c3 Qc5 11. Qxd5 Qxd5 12. Nc7+ Kd8 13. Nxd5 Ne5 14. Bf4 h6 15. Bxe5 hxg5 16. Bc7+ Ke8 17. Be5 f6 18. Nc7+ Kd8 19. Be3 g5 20.
Three lines are offered by the computer here:
21. Bf3 (+9.59), 21. h4 (+9.16), and 21. O-O-O (+9.09).
Black responds to the preferred line of 21. Bf3 by moving Bd6 and effectively taking any hopes of controlling the c7 square. Ostensibly, the trade off allows me to capture the pawn at d5. While the added material advantage is nice, I see more value in O-O-O immediately. The pawn at d5 is still under attack and control of an open d-file seems imminent. I assume that if the computer sees less value in my choice, then the thinking that brought me to that decision is wrong. Correcting that thinking would do me a whole lot more good than winning this particular game though – and so that’s my goal.
We've been playing the computer here, trying to re-familiarize ourselves with the game after a couple of decades in which we stepped away from the game. We alternate between the 'assisted' version and the 'challenge' version . An unexpected challenge we've found ourselves facing is what to do when the recommended move(s) lead us to conversations with ourselves that look something like this:
"Well heck, we can't move Be2 because that will result in the black queen on g4 continuing, Qxg2, losing a pawn and destroying any chances of castling. Additionally, we can see no counter-value in making the move."
Then, after we've applied out best thinking and find ourselves still not able to figure it out, we check the lines offered by the computer. In the line which suggested that our best move is Be2, the computer doesn't take the pawn at g2. Furthermore, running the suggested line out doesn't improve our understanding of the 'why', which is really our only interest. We could post examples but frankly, it's happening with increasing frequency as we progress. Even limiting ourselves to just posting thematic situations would get tedious for forum participants. Incidentally, we started practicing with the first bot (rating 400) and didn't really start running into this problem until we reached (bot) opponents ~1600. Since then, and as we've moved up to the 1800 and 2000 levels, these situations are becoming more frequent.
Any suggestions? Thank you.