The saved computer analyses are with the games in the archive. If you click computer analysis , they should be available without having to rerun them.
At least that's where they were before the new analysis came along.
Where was the knight?
Computer Analysis
Sort:
It had been on f6, protected by the g pawn. I wanted to do something aggressive so I wouldn't lose the initiative, since he also had attacks on my position. I blew it epically, since he immediately followed with Be3+, taking my Queen for his bishop.
Feb 28, 2019
0
#4
Everyone hangs pieces from time to time. It is sometimes called "chess blindness."
Feb 28, 2019
0
#5
The only thing you should be using an engine for is checking for blunders, and missed tactics.
People are different, with differing circumstances and such. Personally what works for me is rapid 30|0. I find that it's the perfect balance between deep thoughts found in daily chess, and fast reactive thoughts found in blitz. It's a balanced approach. If you do well in 30 minute games, you'll improve beautifully in daily and blitz, even if you don't normally play blitz or daily.
Study endgames. They can be a drag at first, but they'll do wonders for your understanding of the game, even your basic opening knowledge will improve.
Don't be afraid of fire... you're at a very significant point in your chess journey right now, so explore every aspect of the game. Go wild and have fun, to grow in a balanced way.
And I second the idea that you should approach computer analysis carefully at your level. Before you delve deep into computer analysis, you must first find your own style.
Chess.com's approach is quite good. It agrees with the rest and only interferes where you've gone wrong. This way you don't have to worry about countless variations that have nothing to do with your game. When the computer finds an inaccuracy or mistake, simply try to understand why, then move on.
Feb 28, 2019
0
#8
IMBacon wrote:
The only thing you should be using an engine for is checking for blunders, and missed tactics.
Which is a very useful function of engines. I don't understand people who say don't use them. An engine will show you things you missed during the game, and things you will miss again when you review the game. You are better off seeing what the engine says than not seeing what the engine says. The advice to not use them makes no sense to me.
Feb 28, 2019
0
#9
forked_again wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
The only thing you should be using an engine for is checking for blunders, and missed tactics.
Which is a very useful function of engines. I don't understand people who say don't use them. An engine will show you things you missed during the game, and things you will miss again when you review the game. You are better off seeing what the engine says than not seeing what the engine says. The advice to not use them makes no sense to me.
IF you can understand "why" an engine suggests something that's one thing. But if you have no clue what an engine is showing, have no idea for the "why" behind the engine analysis, and you're blindly trusting it? You shouldn't be using it.
Feb 28, 2019
0
#10
PawnstormPossie wrote:
forked_again wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
The only thing you should be using an engine for is checking for blunders, and missed tactics.
Which is a very useful function of engines. I don't understand people who say don't use them. An engine will show you things you missed during the game, and things you will miss again when you review the game. You are better off seeing what the engine says than not seeing what the engine says. The advice to not use them makes no sense to me.
The engines don't "explain" why one move is good and another is terrible. You have to look at the moves (sometimes several) and figure it out (if you can). Sometimes an engine gives you a better move that requires nearly perfect play. Now your enticed to start memorizing lines in order to not make mistakes...not good at lower ratings.
At lower ratings as you say, it is much more basic. The engine tells you;
- You could have forked king and queen on move 12
- You could have taken a knight with rook because its defender was pinned on move 20
- You are lucky your opponent didn't see that your e pawn was hanging on move 27 or you would have lost.
Etc.
You can't learn from those opportunities if you never knew they existed, and lower rated players are not going to see them all, even running through the game a few times. You see what you missed quickly with the engine, then you study it, and hopefully your brain gets better at recognizing similar situations.
For more subtle moves, the engine doesn't explain why Bd3 puts you at +0.6 while Ng5 gives you a -0.4. But first you need to know that one move is better, then you can try to figure out why it is better.
If the assumption is that using an engine entices people to memorize lines without understanding them, I wonder how many people do that. I never do.
Feb 28, 2019
0
#11
forked_again wrote:
PawnstormPossie wrote:
forked_again wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
The only thing you should be using an engine for is checking for blunders, and missed tactics.
Which is a very useful function of engines. I don't understand people who say don't use them. An engine will show you things you missed during the game, and things you will miss again when you review the game. You are better off seeing what the engine says than not seeing what the engine says. The advice to not use them makes no sense to me.
The engines don't "explain" why one move is good and another is terrible. You have to look at the moves (sometimes several) and figure it out (if you can). Sometimes an engine gives you a better move that requires nearly perfect play. Now your enticed to start memorizing lines in order to not make mistakes...not good at lower ratings.
At lower ratings as you say, it is much more basic. The engine tells you;
- You could have forked king and queen on move 12
- You could have taken a knight with rook because its defender was pinned on move 20
- You are lucky your opponent didn't see that your e pawn was hanging on move 27 or you would have lost.
Etc.
You can't learn from those opportunities if you never knew they existed, and lower rated players are not going to see them all, even running through the game a few times. You see what you missed quickly with the engine, then you study it, and hopefully your brain gets better at recognizing similar situations.
For more subtle moves, the engine doesn't explain why Bd3 puts you at +0.6 while Ng5 gives you a -0.4. But first you need to know that one move is better, then you can try to figure out why it is better.
If the assumption is that using an engine entices people to memorize lines without understanding them, I wonder how many people do that. I never do.
You have been here long enough to have seen all the posts about engine, and using them:
"Is 1.e4 still playable?"
"AZ/Lelo said..."
"I watched all the Lelo/AZ videos, im aggressive now"
"Does 1.d4 lead to a draw?"
"What is the best first move in chess?"
"I had a game with no blunder. or mistakes!"
"I has a CAPs score of...am i a GM now?"
"Should i get Komodo, or...one engine is rated 50 points higher. Does that matter?"
And it goes on and on and on...
Feb 28, 2019
0
#12
PawnstormPossie wrote:
forked_again wrote:
At lower ratings as you say, it is much more basic. The engine tells you;
- You could have forked king and queen on move 12
- You could have taken a knight with rook because its defender was pinned on move 20
- You are lucky your opponent didn't see that your e pawn was hanging on move 27 or you would have lost.
Etc.
I guess I need the engine that speaks.
Where did you find that?
Your profile says you are American so I guess it isn't a problem with a language barrier, so I'll let you figure out why you don't understand my simple and straight forward post
Feb 28, 2019
0
#13
IMBacon wrote:
forked_again wrote:
PawnstormPossie wrote:
forked_again wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
The only thing you should be using an engine for is checking for blunders, and missed tactics.
Which is a very useful function of engines. I don't understand people who say don't use them. An engine will show you things you missed during the game, and things you will miss again when you review the game. You are better off seeing what the engine says than not seeing what the engine says. The advice to not use them makes no sense to me.
The engines don't "explain" why one move is good and another is terrible. You have to look at the moves (sometimes several) and figure it out (if you can). Sometimes an engine gives you a better move that requires nearly perfect play. Now your enticed to start memorizing lines in order to not make mistakes...not good at lower ratings.
At lower ratings as you say, it is much more basic. The engine tells you;
- You could have forked king and queen on move 12
- You could have taken a knight with rook because its defender was pinned on move 20
- You are lucky your opponent didn't see that your e pawn was hanging on move 27 or you would have lost.
Etc.
You can't learn from those opportunities if you never knew they existed, and lower rated players are not going to see them all, even running through the game a few times. You see what you missed quickly with the engine, then you study it, and hopefully your brain gets better at recognizing similar situations.
For more subtle moves, the engine doesn't explain why Bd3 puts you at +0.6 while Ng5 gives you a -0.4. But first you need to know that one move is better, then you can try to figure out why it is better.
If the assumption is that using an engine entices people to memorize lines without understanding them, I wonder how many people do that. I never do.
You have been here long enough to have seen all the posts about engine, and using them:
"Is 1.e4 still playable?"
"AZ/Lelo said..."
"I watched all the Lelo/AZ videos, im aggressive now"
"Does 1.d4 lead to a draw?"
"What is the best first move in chess?"
"I had a game with no blunder. or mistakes!"
"I has a CAPs score of...am i a GM now?"
"Should i get Komodo, or...one engine is rated 50 points higher. Does that matter?"
And it goes on and on and on...
My point is only that engines are useful and should be used, not that they can't be misused or misunderstood, our that they are the savior for hopeless fools.
Feb 28, 2019
0
#14
forked_again wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
forked_again wrote:
PawnstormPossie wrote:
forked_again wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
The only thing you should be using an engine for is checking for blunders, and missed tactics.
Which is a very useful function of engines. I don't understand people who say don't use them. An engine will show you things you missed during the game, and things you will miss again when you review the game. You are better off seeing what the engine says than not seeing what the engine says. The advice to not use them makes no sense to me.
The engines don't "explain" why one move is good and another is terrible. You have to look at the moves (sometimes several) and figure it out (if you can). Sometimes an engine gives you a better move that requires nearly perfect play. Now your enticed to start memorizing lines in order to not make mistakes...not good at lower ratings.
At lower ratings as you say, it is much more basic. The engine tells you;
- You could have forked king and queen on move 12
- You could have taken a knight with rook because its defender was pinned on move 20
- You are lucky your opponent didn't see that your e pawn was hanging on move 27 or you would have lost.
Etc.
You can't learn from those opportunities if you never knew they existed, and lower rated players are not going to see them all, even running through the game a few times. You see what you missed quickly with the engine, then you study it, and hopefully your brain gets better at recognizing similar situations.
For more subtle moves, the engine doesn't explain why Bd3 puts you at +0.6 while Ng5 gives you a -0.4. But first you need to know that one move is better, then you can try to figure out why it is better.
If the assumption is that using an engine entices people to memorize lines without understanding them, I wonder how many people do that. I never do.
You have been here long enough to have seen all the posts about engine, and using them:
"Is 1.e4 still playable?"
"AZ/Lelo said..."
"I watched all the Lelo/AZ videos, im aggressive now"
"Does 1.d4 lead to a draw?"
"What is the best first move in chess?"
"I had a game with no blunder. or mistakes!"
"I has a CAPs score of...am i a GM now?"
"Should i get Komodo, or...one engine is rated 50 points higher. Does that matter?"
And it goes on and on and on...
My point is only that engines are useful and should be used, not that they can't be misused or misunderstood, our that they are the savior for hopeless fools.
Agreed...Just like anything else. If someone isnt educated on how to use something, it will be misused.
I'm seeing a lot of advice about Daily games: sensible. I mean, I admitted that one of my problems was that I didn't study each move thoroughly enough. That is a great (and obvious) solution.
And I see what you're saying about engines. I almost always understand why a Blunder is so, and know why a move was a mistake 9 moves out of 10. But the majority of inaccuracies I don't understand. Guess I shouldn't pay too much attention.
It is incredibly useful for missing tactics. I'm never happy with myself when I miss a forcing move that allows me to make positional gains or pick up a piece, and the engine tells me when those moments are. I had been doing games of 15|10, but that might be too fast for me...
Mar 1, 2019
0
#16
PawnstormPossie wrote:
forked_again wrote:
PawnstormPossie wrote:
forked_again wrote:
At lower ratings as you say, it is much more basic. The engine tells you;
- You could have forked king and queen on move 12
- You could have taken a knight with rook because its defender was pinned on move 20
- You are lucky your opponent didn't see that your e pawn was hanging on move 27 or you would have lost.
Etc.
I guess I need the engine that speaks.
Where did you find that?
Your profile says you are American so I guess it isn't a problem with a language barrier, so I'll let you figure out why you don't understand my simple and straight forward post
Your profile says your reply was full of bad energy.
My point was engines do not explain, for example, which tactics were missed. If the player isn't familiar with a certain tactic, they will not know by looking at move notations. If their visualization skill is low, they would have to play through each move to "see" why.
Move notations? Have you never used engine analysis? It gives you much more than that.
Mar 1, 2019
0
#17
ThunderousRage wrote:
I'm seeing a lot of advice about Daily games: sensible. I mean, I admitted that one of my problems was that I didn't study each move thoroughly enough. That is a great (and obvious) solution.
And I see what you're saying about engines. I almost always understand why a Blunder is so, and know why a move was a mistake 9 moves out of 10. But the majority of inaccuracies I don't understand. Guess I shouldn't pay too much attention.
It is incredibly useful for missing tactics. I'm never happy with myself when I miss a forcing move that allows me to make positional gains or pick up a piece, and the engine tells me when those moments are. I had been doing games of 15|10, but that might be too fast for me...
I will say this again. As long as you're using engines to check blunders, and missed tactics, your doing fine. Where so many go wrong is when they are getting caught up in the difference between blunders/mistakes/ inaccuracies/etc. Or the infamous: "Why is....".20" of a pawn better than my move?"
What i would also suggest is playing through an entire game leading up to the blunder/missed tactic. It really helps to get an understanding of "why" and "how" you got there.
ThunderousRage wrote:
I'm seeing a lot of advice about Daily games: sensible. I mean, I admitted that one of my problems was that I didn't study each move thoroughly enough. That is a great (and obvious) solution.
And I see what you're saying about engines. I almost always understand why a Blunder is so, and know why a move was a mistake 9 moves out of 10. But the majority of inaccuracies I don't understand. Guess I shouldn't pay too much attention.
It is incredibly useful for missing tactics. I'm never happy with myself when I miss a forcing move that allows me to make positional gains or pick up a piece, and the engine tells me when those moments are. I had been doing games of 15|10, but that might be too fast for me...
I used to love 15|10 tournaments. I've actually stacked up a few trophies. These days I don't get to play them much.
👍👍
Mar 1, 2019
0
#20
PawnstormPossie wrote:
Apparently not.
Can you show an example like what you've mentioned?
Sure, I did a quick analysis of your last rapid game. If you go to the game and click computer analysis it should come up. You lost that game, but on move 22 you had a winning advantage of -8 as black if you played Qxf3+. But you played a defensive move and gave white a better position. Later on, you fought back from a bad deficit but gave white a +7 advantage when you failed to take a free knight with your pawn on move 28.
Useful information if you are trying to get better, wouldn't you agree?
Dumb question here, relatively new to chess.com. (Only a few months). I'm currently on the free trial for Platinum membership, and I saved a computer analysis of a game. Where can I find it again?
Also, I'm a mere 1000 player. I made it to 1070, but my rating tanked recently. I think I probably need to be playing less games, and studying the board more carefully before making individual moves.... But regardless, I usually go over games with the computer afterward to see exactly wear I went wrong. However, watching the PCL last week, GM Robert Hess said that looking to engines for answers is not a good idea, and shouldn't be done at all. Mostly because you should know WHY moves are made, instead of just seeing everything pan out. Should I quit looking at analysis? Or first go over them myself, and see whether or not the computer agrees with me?
I mean, I know the fundamentals. I even also read IM Silman's book The Amateur's Mind, and it said the best way to make a plan for a game was to analyze imbalances, such as bishops v knights, material, pawn structure, etc. But it's really difficult to scan the board for tactical moves, analyze the imbalances and come up with a plan based off of that. Difficult, but doable. But I almost inevitably end up screwing up in the course of a 30 move game. For example:
I'm black, and after he played Kh1 I wasn't entirely sure what to do. So I moved my Knight to e4, which of course let the Bishop fork my Queen on e3. I realized this soon after I'd played it. But I'd thought I'd thought the move through. I know that on one hand, I could take g3 with my Queen and trade with his and end with a pawn up. (In retrospect I could've taken with the Bishop, but I didn't consider that as my King felt VERY open) But this move attacked the Queen AND Bishop, as well as giving me more ammo against g3! But of course, he forked me and that was the end of that.
So again, advice. General and specific. What should I be doing?
I guess what I want is advice, both general and specific. Are computers a good idea or bad? Should I focus more on opening repertoire, or something else?